violation of section three three seven based on two patents the only nine patent in the two thirty one patent both of which are directed to the packages for remember this microphone in the six ninety five investigation which was just completed last month the l j found in the commission adopted as its final determination that each of the asserted claims there was either interest spitted or obvious including claims that claim one of the two thirty one patent and to have that part of the id reviewed the i c c decided not to review that portion of the id and it adopted that portion as its final determination that the chamber chip should be excluded from any one bit exclusion or the nose then petition the i t c and the i t c violated its own rules section two ten point forty seven which says a petition can only be granted for a new question that is being raised a feature that is not out of the food and the exclusion order now is ambiguous as to whether in my view the exclusionary should not cover the chamber chip but they remove the language specifically in granting notice petition and it are pealed is that the itc's decision to grant that petition to have the language removed from the limited exclusion order should be reversed and the language should be back again to wounded exclusion order is not vacated for other reasons the l e o s should be amended to replace the language that says the chamber chip products containing the chamber chip are not covered by the limited exclusion or products changing twenty nine investigation this investigation the i t c erred in construing claim turned so broadly so as to remove invented it was described in the patent specifications then having stripped the claims of those features then in doing is validity analysis distinguish the references based on certain characteristics of patents necessary to find the first novel first and second level interconnection necessary find it's a single self contained unit none of these though the broader the claim the more the validity problem those will have and the infringement problem as construed presently and as the as the l j construed the claims and uses infringement analysis he us there are invented features described in the specifications but as construed by the yale j and the i t c those features are no longer present claims even if those features are found however those features are also found in the prior art so i'd like to turn if i could to the claim destruction of the claim term volume which appears in all of the claims of the nine patent the early night patent abstract describes the invention as including a transducer unit being attached to the upper surface of the substrate and overlapping at least a portion of the recess where in the back drawing the transducer is formed the summary of the invention goes on to state th substrate has an upper surface with the recess found in and then again describes transducers overlapping that recess so that a back bottom of the transducer is formed the only nine invention is the enlarge case it's not necessary to claim cover each and every body so the commission strain attempt to cover as many figures as a can is contrary to both philips and see are barred which old paint construction should be in view of the intrinsic evidence and conductive layer under the substrate the purpose of this there is to out for directly mounting the components onto the conductive where to get a direct electrical connection between the conductive layer and that component the two thirty one pat the idea that scribe in the pattern is to have a substrate put down some conductive traces and then to put the component right on top of that trace which is a direct electrical connection the accused rice is do not  bit early nine patent the applicants distinguish their invention based on the fact that the prior art did not show this direct electrical connection so they distinguish the reference that did not sure putting the thirty one patent it's not under a proper validity analysis none of these asserted claims is valid because they're all directed to nothing more than a simple package that includes a substrate a cover and an aperture at true out the sound comment the inventor came up this package in just six days the prior art shows that those skilled in the art routinely made simple modifications of packages to adapt and pursue their different applications and made use of existing packages for me with occasions and finding the claims  c aired by not taking into account the inference is in creative steps of an inventor in simple common sense as this court precedent requires a quote head in the bell air assault case then confirmed recently in the wires case that were all of the limitations of the patent were present in the prior art references and the invention was addressed to a known problem k s r compels a finding of obviousness is undisputed here that all of these features were found found in a prior was the devices they were not properly brought before him and therefore it wasn't part of his determination so if the party big party wants to bring this to the attention to the commission they can certainly come to the commission and the commission determination and we believe that this case should proceed forward at least at this point now what happens in the future if we don't know it at some point maybe they need some issue of judicial  structure which has two levels of into connection imply that it will affect the claim because it will it will remove this notion that at least two level looking to connect should be provided by the package one is between the device good afternoon your honors i think as opposed to what i originally want to talk about i'd like to address some of the questions that came up already in parliament first from judge mayer looking the question on the six ninety five and some of the relationship and you said that the decision was totally opposite it's really not totally opposite if you look at the record that's before this court record before the court and six ninety five the only similarities on the issues of invalidity are on the bomb how a reference and on the bomb how reference to the court in six ninety five i did find that there was no intice patient and that the claims were valid issues that will be addressed if an appeal comes up on those but with regard to what similar to what the court is dealing with here are the issues did the court in six ninety five did hold that  are in existence there are some overlap in the claims and then there are differences in the claims or some claims that are asserted here that are not asserted in six ninety five there are some claim a certain six me and a five there are not asserted here so you've got a way to no different then any kind of after the fact or after the hearing modification in other words you have the same products that were addressed during discovery which was the design that the case involved down and then after discovery there was the testimony that oh now we've modified things so it is when there was an exclusion that was addressed it wasn't an exclusion as in this new design doesn't infringe it was an exclusion only because it was a after the proceeding modification so it would be like a material we don't yet if they want to do it some kind of advisory a new design after the proceeding they would go through and get an advisory opinion to see if they're ok so that's the issue on this issue is there was  discussion and package as far as whether there is an inconsistency and whether the commission whether the l g a ruled one way for validity purposes and one way for  and i would say very much there is no inconsistency in that and in particular if you look at the infringement analysis there wasn't a need to define package to begin with because that was never disputed by the appellant the only issues on infringement that they raised and that is detailed in the are gone over in detail in the id the only issues were the definition of layer in the definition of cover they did not dispute the package issue so the fact number one the fact of the matter was there wasn't and there wasn't a definition provided that could have been inconsistent number two if you look at it in the a o j a l j does come out expressly and says yes although these other things are not  dresses only those things that are disputed the judge then goes on to and says but i find that noles has proved all the elements in the claim and in doing so the judge says and i show that there is a package in both pappas and that's his ruling on that is on eight to twelve may two seventeen of the record but what's in what he does is if you look at the proof that he relied upon for that decision that includes the electrical connection one of the issues that you mentioned your honor as far as what dr gilleo said was the attributes of a package one of them big of the electrical connection to the outside sirte to another circuit that is very much one of the things that the judge relied upon when he said yes and i found there was a package the other thing that so talk about the preamble is the pretty i'm bill is only talking about the two thirty one patent snap talking about the zero eight nine ok so now let's take a look at the two theories on him and whether the package if you will brings a life to it ok and what was said about the package already there were three really through things i submit that are identified in the package and why you could say this thing does in fact bring life to what is there first of all the court said that to be a package it has to be a single self contained unit in other words it's a see you have a bunch of and yes church correct so it's not limited to you know and when i said it brings it together i don't mean in limiting it to just those elements i mean as opposed to having a number of individual elements on the printed circuit board in other words a package going back to what dr gilleo said as you pointed out one of the things it does is it gives protection ok in giving it protection it's some include piece it's a coherent piece it's not individual items on a circuit board and that's why an eighty three eighty three of the  commission says we adapt the ale chase finding that the term package makes clear that all the components listed in the claim body must come together to form a package the elements cannot simply be found  printed circuit board but must be provided as a single self contained unit that's what we're talking about that's what's we referred to in throughout the specification is this invention is about a package sent out about individual elements on the sim on a printed circuit board which is what bom hour is or has individual elements not brought together as a package but put together on a circuit board and that's the big distinction then the court went on to say and dr galea both went on to say there are other specific attributes of a package those actual buttes being the attention protection involving really this housing or enclosure and the other attribute of the of the package being the fact that it can now make an electrical connection to the outside world  package could you put a microphone in there and would it work in the answer is yes it would and would it protect the microphone yes and would it fit in there yes and would the sound get the microphone and would it work as a microphone package yes and that's what the crescent peterson references show also that those skilled in the art the peterson reference the took a pressure sensor package in a pressure sensor package as a hole in it because the thing being measured has to get inside and created an accelerometer package that does not art in the six ninety five investigation the l g again found about how it does not disclose a package but then it went on to say that john howard plus the hearing aid men's package respect to the six twenty five investigation to the extent that there are overlapping claims noel limited exclusion order can be directed to those claims have been found to be invalid in six ninety five because those cranes are now invalid  and finally with respect to chamber chip this situation is very different very different than going back for a redesign product to get it covered by a minute exclusion order the chamber chip products were before the briefed on petition for review it was decided not to review that portion of the id nos requested further big issue again so numerous times to try to have that language removed in the i t c granting that