we will hear arguments next in number eighteen to two to three balance out versus fit bit design that's exactly what happened here the plain termit issue is like a guide and the state of construction is a mechanism for delivering light along a path which they want to sell carries with no ma his invention for that's a response to your argument that twenty one can't really be like guide because there's not enough protection for it that doesn't make the cladding part of like so not be paying that's clear that sequence is important so yes in the institution decision the board introduced this idea that the shelf support member could provide to deliver light on a path that wasn't what fit contended either in the petition or later can't deliver without that doesn't mean a thing that's necessary is part of the like that is the cladding may enable the like guy to do its job as a like guide without being part appendix one of seven and the quote is or a portion of the quote is shall support member twenty nine dollars thereby provides a mechanism for delivering light along a path that's pretty what pretty unequivocal ok and then what about the final written decision form of cladding right yes around it and that's to keep exterior light from entering the like god is that right that's right in a particular moment that's right and isn't that what is going on in  market to they call it a light shutting off property or something like that so i guess what i'm trying to figure out is why isn't the shell remember twenty nine that's doing this kind of the same thing that's going on in your path disclosure so in the past disclosure it does it does talk about so st of the panda so i guess to be clear it's not about we need this ready show support members of the light coming from the optical emitter doesn't shoot out of the light guard part twenty one dollars be off into all sorts of areas beyond the light guard part did the support members really more designed to stop sunlight or other some kind of other exterior light from interfering with the light coming from the optical emitter through the light guard part new mocca new model is actually the mars a very short reference it doesn't really explain a lot about what it's doing with the shell support member if it does talk about in at least part preventing some sort of crosstalk between the light emitter in the light detector it also acts as a housing that big contended tense is that it constitutes  way for a particular purpose they're trying to focus light the whole purpose of the past uses like us to focus light and it particular place to enhanced sensitivity this was one of the keys to their invention there's a particular description of this with respect to an embodiment in the ear and the need to use a light guy to really focus light in a particular way what is it about new magos quote unquote like god part that in your view is failing to serve the same function as your claimed like god our problem with that is that dumas doesn't describe doesn't talk about trying to deliver a lie or any any words around that not just those exact words no no discussion about focusing or anything else so it's not it's not patton has been construed to mean a mechanism for delivering line along the path and that's because of various discussions within the pattern of doing that so it's a it's a particularly like guide it's got a construction and new market doesn't  agreed it doesn't have to use the same words my our point is just that it's not just that it's that new model is not its approach is totally different it isn't trying to to direct control the line anyway it's just shin very the the tip if i like using my pan the tip of the plug that's the distal end now we would not say that you know that this the the area you know just down from the a clear and that is not engaging the body and that is our our our focus here because the claim requires that that this plan engage the body for a reason the reason for it and doesn't have that end and gauge the bodies because it would be engaging  there could be damage so there that that that that's the reason phrases built that way i also would say that if you look at the description around freight and in figure ten it shows that light coming back into one of the earth you know the there is no discussion explicitly of light coming and any of the other further most ribs either but in addition to all of that aside of this device is not  the construction is end opposite the proximal and it needs to be and opposite the proximal and our contention is these side ribs just can't be that and what the what the board did to address this concern which we had argue it said in qualification that they did not limit distilling to mean any particular and or be limited to a single and at the farthest distance of the proximal and in our view this is essentially a reconstruction right at the end  as if they're saying it's conclusion that it's not until the next paragraph that the word says inventor stephen move is also a pattern overs co founder and president and has a clear interest in the outcome of this trial so decision is having this st pair that says hey all the evidence is just insufficient for some of these claim elements yes then going into crab ration but i want to know did you actually appeal them did you address that in your briefing because really what i saw in the briefing was simply indefiniteness and corroboration well so i understand what your honor is asking the way we looked at this was there taking issue with those those pieces of evidence was an attack on which were meant to corroborate the the inventor testimony was it was an attack on the corroboration that was the way we viewed it i understand what you're asking that  you can see it in the photo the emitter within the housing there's there says the photos don't show that there's internal connections i'm not even sure what that means exactly but there's not the claims are about i don't know what the internal connections that are claim are shown i don't believe that there are any i think that that's pointing to something that's a non issue so to us that mr paik didn't know the inner workings of the prototypes well he wasn't offered to testify about the inner workings he was but i think it to the extent that the that the court agrees with that i do think that under an s c tack that it would likely need to be remanded to be analyzed under the correct standard but in ordinary circumstances for operation is a question of fact i think is that the correct that's right it's just here and the problem isn't just we're not taking issue with a particularly nasty her particular fact it's the totality of the evidence and the failure to twenty nine cladding as part of the light guide and whatever else is clear your petition did not do that well let me say st and foremost the petition unequivocally did identify twenty one a guides and then river made maybe i was not clear let's talk about twenty nine ok so twenty nine the final going to start with the final written decision the final written decision does refer to and it says specifically that the like  and the part of part that i'm referring to is needy states that are properly designed like it does not leak light and if we go further on down the page seventy mm to the nd full paragraph the st sense we agree with petitioner right to go a few sentences further this is the sense thirty seven lines fifteen to nineteen it describes and this is i think the point that you raised with the bill itself counsel quote in some embodiments a like guide may be surrounded or partially surrounded the important points the final written decision written but can you address appendix nine hundred and seven so each page seventeen of the institution decision which seven lines down from the bottom s shall support member twenty nine dollars thereby provides a mechanism for delivering light along that path in a manner consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation that seems to place twenty nine dollars as part of the like shell support remember twenty nine providing the mechanism of delivering light but if you go back to the petition the specific petition that was filed under the under the  shows that it will be some light one out of the five red arrows is delivered along a path from twenty one dollars a down to the wrist that's important at the import of new maga that's the overall system and so when the in the final written not include the cladding in that sentence that's right from some the final written decision and then if we go a little bit further you know the light guy doesn't have to restrict or direct the light it's only required that it be a mechanism for delivering board didn't rely on the combination of my guys like that part in the planning for this limitation in that final written decision the border like soley on the like parts and referred to the clad like guy only to highlight similarities again between the overall system in  that components that are not at any tip would be disturbed but are on the sides near the tip of one to eight well it's just that the construction is and opposite the proximal and when you look me it my whatever knowledge i may have of the word distal but that is not limited to the very tip of something that is highly linear but that's just in my head so what else do i look at his argument is the  it's not limited to a specific the farthest point it could be something that's towards the end i mean there is the or it's intentionally not what evidence do we have that the claim language this and the specification i mean you know that it obviously firmly within the scope of the claim language in that sense and that's clearly disclosed in very very relying on every rib sixty four dollars you just relying on the ribs to  ribs constitutes a distal and or are you saying well the most distal point there are two branches of ribs coming off of that distant point and so that continu become a substantially flat surface where those start to intersect and and that's where the issues is ultimately you get down to a certain areas where you can't tell as a personal injury scale whether it's honor since i didn't get to reach it i wanted to start with the indefiniteness arguments of that's fine with respect to substantially flat face surface never in a field of view we don't think that that is indefinite u we say substantially flat is because flat perfectly flat and that's might be difficult to achieve and pat law allows for using a word like substantial so that you don't have a claim that has to be mathematically  provably absolutely flat but where we're not trying to have have that term encompasses some curve that's the distinction between that substantially flat faced and substitute claim thirteen is substantially cur minor of curves with that white view necessarily compared to to compare to flat yes see answer incrementally ok so the most mile the curve would be would satisfy the limitation substantially curve limiting that's what that secondly i did want to say because the an to dating argument only relates to claim thirteen i think the focus ought to be on claim thirteen in other words the claim fourteen that includes the substantially curbed problematic with respect to definite now simply queens in so she would or what are we supposed to her we supposed to understand that why is that not problematic so that in his testimony he just he he talked about unequivocally flat and unequivocally curved and as they tried to as they examined him they started to get into some gray areas that i think are not realistically at issue in other words is not what this person wearing skills consider a flat faced and on in the on the contrary a curved surface like the one and figure thirty one dollars is apparent to a person of ordinary skill and they're going to understand that that is going to widen the field of view so so i think in that context the comment that if you if you bring these curves and flatness down to where they're just you know if i'm pessimal differences between each other there might be a gray area there but i don't think  that that that's of mathematical precision issue which is not the standard under indefiniteness it's reasonably certain in here if you have the specifications description a view of the inventor's testimony we think it's clear that understands why you would use a flat face surface to narrow the field of view an example i referred to earlier in the year where you're trying to really focus side in the senate in a particular area but there is enough difference between substantially flattened substantially her that something clinton both i thought yes i think that's right i think you're you're either yes and either one of the other is a possible that you can be neither i don't i don't know the answer that last question i think the answer is no i think you've got to be one of the other but i bet you get everybody every which way has the attention that maybe it is