involving an optical device it's a small piece of plastic that has been associated with an l e v and the concept being is that an l e d projects primarily in the direction of its emission these would be used typically for back lighting a l c d panel in your big screen t v so the idea being is to take these l e d s and to take their light and to broaden out in such a way that when they're done so you can use range issue so if i were to assume and i know that you debate this but assume that that part unsanitized conditions one until and you then as i understand it separately mind limitation in terms of my knowledge of physics and to what extent would that be a natural result of satisfying at least conditions here it is not a natural result of the the air has ever effective index of one when it first hits a new medium in this case the inner surface of this lands it's going to refract and then when it goes through and it's going to exit back into the air it's going to re end up affecting how the light is necessarily going to bend so it has to do with some aspects of the shape but it also has to do with the medium in which you're going through now the happen tensity angle range is important because of the which is called a lamb birch and emission pattern that comes from the l e d in general that would look like kind of like a balloon shape coming off of the light so the highest intensity is in the middle there far less on the bottom and generally has like this kind of balloon shape so this happened ten to the range at for the purposes in which this is directed it's important because that's  fifty percent of the admission so for this to have the effectiveness to satisfy the conditions in the manner to achieve the invention it has to met to satisfy conditions one in two through at least have this gradual decrease instead of a linear decrease as bit and is it your view that sassy and calculations for mathematical calculations don't indicate that that darkened would achieve that result well there's two aspects just we disagree that his calculations he did not show the most doesn't tire happen tensity angular range he uses that term and definition when he is first defining what he understands it claims are drawn to but then his opinion say that it's over a broad angular range not the claim and what's broad that the court had doesn't have to make a determination as to that the question here is what does the claim say and the and the claimed term is half intensity angular range is actually defined in the specification and so there's a specific definition that's provided in the spec and it says where essentially i can give you the citation to the extent that you whether parking meets or fails to meet they're completely silent on this claim limitation now with regard to say she is calculations though before we can even get to agreeing or disagreeing with the output of them whether or not they're accurate he took a figure from park and scanned it into the computers now we can do for the magic's of modern technology he did a trace around it and they need a curve fitting and then he put it into a retrace program but he to do that he's necessarily assuming that the parking diagram the parking figure is accurate and to scale and this  i agree with you i'm on the issue of not scale diagrams that's problematic like but that was just one piece of what he did he also had a verbal discussion in the relevant paragraphs something decorations and you know when he read his verbal discussion in his relevant paragraphs go to the portion he cites there are several places where he cites to the spec where it says it has a d magnification and a magnification and that generally is again that has nothing to do with you know the specifics of the claim it has nothing to do with saying that it actually meets over the range that it will keep that ratio of one and  critical importance about his experiments are the is the declaration which he put in the japanese proceeding which we introduced into the proceedings and specific lee he showed that even with his calculations that if you this is it a one zero five eight to five nine and a one zero eight the same figure shows up he shows that if you took them out through land as he traced it and put it into the computer and did the calculations and you only use the mushroom land you would get this to peak structure if the light in the middle is it a dip and it peaks that does not have any of the uniformity that they're talking about with spreading over any broad angular range what this is what this is showing that it's at the real purpose of park and what it terms of the uniformity though i mean parking does talk about uniformity but the claims don't do that with the parking talks about uniformity in a culminating column meeting sense it's very if i may i address what parking is actually directed to and this is an issue of contention between the board in our positions as to whether or not this is relevant parking started out is it's a it's an improvement on a prior invention the t d i are lands of park and is a land which is shown in several of the figures in which the light comes off the light source as it hits the little facet it's then directed out so in order to make that more efficient so that they go from having that kind of peak and then broadened out figure they get to this literally beam of light mushroom lands or one of the other they could be of other shapes that was just one shape in park and and they match it by an iterative pattern so that it's light is not worrying about whether it's gradually decreasing not worrying about whether it's to five over they don't one is like greater than one over the period of any intensity range all that it's trying to do is make sure that that mushroom lands is specifically matched to the t i our land so that it does not create any like broadening it's not change talking about any ratio of equity gree of the ratios it wants to focus the light and parking is specifically directed to the column eating it uses a formula to create the first then hemispherical lands and then on line thirty one then this new deviate or lands is generated for this new profile repeating  deviation it has nothing to do with the type of you know angular perception that the claims of the seven twenty three pattern are talking about it's talking about depending on which t i are land you start with seventy four nights evidence comes out looking like a sand but it's been turned upside down on the beach so they've taken that light and not broadly diffused it but actually put it into this focus being when you look at the application for parking art it's not it's understandable they're talking about replacing the parabolic classical lenses that we used to use you have a light pole you have the parabolic lamp like and i have flashlight but for automobile tail lights and so by using this shii our lands to start having an alley you can actually make it a very focused beam by doing this matching and if we don't attack that you know ingenuity of what went on in park and that's not what we're here for but it really does have a specific purpose it doesn't talk about any fish if it angle it doesn't talk about any ratio between any angles it gives new no numerical values of any angles and it never talks about the concept of full intensity much less half intensity it doesn't talk anything about this range what it talks about is building this into len system so th specifically matched to maximize and improve the performance of the t i our lines as your way into our but i'll give you a few minutes from n ok good afternoon your honour's most of the time spent the by counsel for the appellant was about this concept of half the range and what it's because i asked him exactly and what he tried to say is that there was no evidence in the record supporting this concept of half a mile range i disagree with that i disagree strongly and first off we have to consider what is the standard of review the review either is or is just when you just discuss the evidence  exactly and when you look at the mamba long what you see is a sharp peak distribution and that is what happens when you have a t r lens alone and what a t r lens does is it takes whatever distribution is sent into it and projects it forward as a call so that's its job it doesn't need distribute the light it just takes whatever it receives and projects what parkinsons disclosed was adding a lens to the input side of the  are lens to spread the light at the input side to make what the t r lens produces the collimated beam even evenly distributed and what he said was very clearly in even in the abstract is what the the angular half intensity range well the half intensity of angle which is actually in their reply brief the appellant for the first time said as to be at least eighty five degrees or in fact eighty five degrees exactly that's simply untrue and nowhere in the record so the answer is that it doesn't say it and partly it well we have where this comes from is dr sassy and drew a line based on those graphs and said the line up on my blog th o the better one let's go to seven fifty one where he has and side by side and there is he says i'm quoting here on the seventy one the intensity plot of the left indicates the lead three dimensional intensity variation created by the prior art disclosure by parker the intensity of the plot on the right indicates the three dimensional intensity variation created by modifying the prior art to include the light flux control number the central peak region on the left which approximates the location of the half intensity and you'll region is shown on the right as spread and smoothed out over a larger region that's actually the same paragraph where it was first about we're talking about diagrams that are that are not drawn to scale these actually are not diagrams these are simulations as described in the in the bargain itself right so he says that i approximates the location of the half intensity and range and what he then said is what you can see on the right is that sharp peak has been spread out over a large angular range so the half intensity angle of the range it doesn't say that it's occurred over the fall half intensity and arrange well what he's talking about in that paragraph it is is that it's the half intensity angular range that has been spread so that is what he's talking about being so yes yes so that the intensity is the same on the on the top of the plateau the rotate something trivial right which should be about half of because they've scaled these both to effectively one they've shown the same height but they're not actually what the one on the right would be if it wasn't scaled on to the sun to a different onto a different scale would be about half the height or probably a little lower than the one on the left and what you can see is the here's the issue what we're talking about is the half intensity angular range before the addition of the last so it's the half intensity angular range of the light source what you're trying to do is provide this is what's coming out of the lens this is bending to the right you know on the right hand side and the amount of the bending is gradually decreasing as you lou through so it's a bit that's what i take to be condition one condition to so what he is saying here is he's describing in paragraph sixty three the angular range over which that spreading is a curve so the flattening the lower of the lowering of the distribution in say is over that half intensity angular range that circle of central light which is the primary purpose of parted and is even described in the abstract where it says that the purpose is to spread the light to the input side of the t r and he's saying it's over that half intensity he talks about the peak on the left and he says approximately a half intensity and reach and it's gone on the right so he's saying that's what's been spread away that's what's now missing so what you previously saw as a sharp peak has been spread out so you can tell that it is over the half in intensity angular range he also looked at the the shape overall and said from his view of the shape overall and its purpose this was at a sixty six he says you can tell that the spreading and the decrease will be substantially over the entire surface and weiss says that is there is a dip in the middle of the dip in the middle is  that strongly deviates light and it in fact when you look at the distribution you can tell that it's reversing it's changing the peat distribution that you would otherwise have and spreading that out to make sure that it's in paragraph sixty three you need to translate what his words are into that conclusion so he doesn't have the conclusion in words that i understand to be the same as the one the claim requires and then this is what i'm trying to explain omit let me see if i can do it again and somewhat better clear language there is a peak on the left side of figure two at the claim doesn't have the peaks translate peak peak is the half intensity angular range the problem that both the prior ar reference and parking are dealing with is a distribution that is too bright in the center and would both are trying to do is spread out that brightness over a longer range to make it more uniform they are both doing that same thing and doing it more extent asserted in the claims and that's exactly what you're extrapolating you're basically saying oh and you know that that there's as he shows a half intensity range so i'm now saying that the that the figure on the right none of which archer are are simulations so whether they're to scale that's how they describe this is not a situation when it whenever the patent are brought up not to scale that was always about the lens describes itself never about the simulations he even says is a simulation done on the lenses using a monte carlo algorithm that's with that's with the patent describes but whether or not to scale the a fact of what dr sassy and says is the problem is a peek the peek is where the half intensity an and the result is that peak that problem that half intensity angular range that's higher than it should be is gone on the right it disappears it is now been spread and which you can tell by is where it is well he says i'm looking at this distribution which is the problematic distribution and i am seeing about where half of the height of that is so i can look at a drawing and it did you can compare the drawings that they have in their patent where they have a before which is a print distribution and after with a slightly lower distribution and what dr sasson says is well if i look at half the height above there is the that the part of the distribution that is the half angle that half intensity in the range and he says on the right i can tell that it's gong that has been spread and then it's been spreading in reverse to the distribution itself and what i can tell from that is that it's been spread and then it's been spread grew spread gradually there's no sharp corners there's no issues and he also says and this is excuse me in paragraph sixty six of his declaration and paragraph sixty it that's the half intensity spread ok and then he says describes it means it's just a simple region on the left and on the right and then he says based on the shape of light flux and trauma about is trying to show that the problem on the left has been solved on the right that it is no longer there and what you can see instead is that the input to the t r lines which is what's being projected forward is now more uniform and it doesn't have the fundamental problem of the bright peak that is now disappear if we were to disagree that with you regarding what southey and says and conclude that it doesn't show that last aspect of claim so that the anticipation ruling could not be affirmed then what would we do but there are many remaining issues that the board decided not to decide likely so obvious it would be your argument to find the missing limitation the missing limitation there would be based on the nature of l e d s which he discloses l e d s but he doesn't explain that their distribution is a land version and that what you want to do is reverse that distribution in order to have a distribution that's more even so what you have is in order to reverse it just lambertson to make it from cheat to make it more flat and even what you need to do and this is it what he describes but not in so many words is that you need to have both spreading that's clear and it's in the abstract of the park itself you need to have spreading but the nature of the spreading has to move verse the problems in the in the distribution you see in the to do that what you guess a sara lee have is spreading and that the amount of spreading has to be in the highest at the center because that's where the most light is and it has to decrease gradually to reverse the problematic distribution brief page six they describe what the seven twenty three pat is talking about and in particular and they refer in put it number three that it's this l e d non uniformity that the seven twenty three patent is trying to address now this intensity about this l e d this is very important because when we look at the figures figure paragraph america of sixty three excess yet it's another to conclude all by itself even though it might have been explained that or just assume that it's enough to say that it is actually the comparison between the two that in order to get from montblanc to the flat now what you have to do is bend a bunch of the middle white out to increase the intensity as as you move away from from the center and that one could infer from that that when you end up with the flat ground and the half intensity is basically at the cliff it can't be anywhere else that what you're doing is taking something which there was a gradual slope that that said no you cannot infer that but specific evidence and where in the joint appendix it's i don't assuming that to be the case i don't know that there's a specific evidence that would rip but that in that fashion show what you told the board was they just haven't met their burden because you can't infer that well we there's several things we talk about you we cannot rely upon these diagrams for that we go into that at length because they're not to scale are actually met or the diagrams in sixty three yes yes and there's this court's precedent again says that if they're not to scale or quantitatively link to something in the specification you cannot start mean am i wrong and if so explain why that the half intensity range on the second thing has to be at the cliff it's uniform intensity at the top you know and with all due respect that's not a valid  going on because the very nature of this is that it does spread in ways that won't be captured by the t r o glands so there's a there's a range and you know think about it the concept of that if i had a flashlight and i can take the flashlight and i can change it by changing that focus so that i can make it a broad range now the half intensity angular range of fifty somewhere over here or if i focus it down to a beam now the happened to the angular range of three very tight we don't know what this is starting with because the simulation they gave us for these two figures we don't know what the t i are lens they used was we don't know what its light source was without knowing its light source we don't know that they've taken into account or even care about its half intensity angular range this circle that was drawn on to figure two way that's saying that the light whatever its source was that ultimately made it through the t i our lands and was then affected