directed aromatics i was sophisticated and complex technology hopefully no one on this panel has been in a car accident scene first and healthcare mags operate but if you have you appreciate the speed in which airbags deploy and the experts in the uk your testified airbags reach full deployment in a period approximately thirty milliseconds which is one of the experts noted is less than the blink of an eye because of the speed in which your bags deploy a host of design considerations must be taken into account in the blue griffith twenty four you say miss bell  said i'm quoting this it could be possible at fourteen forty five i didn't find anything explicitly emitted do you have anything in the record where she does i think the record site that  back to the the problem of six five three what it what it's trying one of the things i have a problem with is that it seems like we're not really differentiating between various claims in other words you're twenty would also have to be narrow correct that's correct and yet you seem to be buying into this notion that the broad of the construction is acceptable as representative but it doesn't seem to me that it is  don't agree with you that it's not representative of all the claims i would say that it's representative of the broader construction being representative claims one in thirty five but not claims twenty and even it claims that specify x stitching or stitching if you argue that separately  no i think we are focused on the independent claims that do not specify as text they did it argue to save the stitching claims even if you lose on the other claims require stitching i didn't remember reading in the blue brief that you made any distinction between the two in fact you're making one overall argument i think that's correct your honor yes so if we disagree with you on the proper construction and think the board was right is there any so we've touched on the fix then and the releasable temporary holding features i would like to not talk about the diffuser limitation the fuse or limitation or cited an independent claim thirty five as well as deep in it claims twenty six and thirty three honour's look at the evidence of record for the user which for most is expert comes in a appendix site seventy six you will see well there's a couple problems first there's no clear motivation to combine at all  fact if you look at a pic seventy six  jima quote would improve the airbag module that's it that they are similar and one would improve the other there's no further explanations provide so in this fact aren't very analogous to the obvious analysis that was vacated a couple weeks ago by this court in personal web technologies and that opinion the court held that it was not enough to simply say that a skill or innocent once presented but two references would have understood that they could be combined more analysis from the few tabs needed i think wait a minute i mean  case i'm sorry i don't actually remember the details of the case but it sounds like from what you're reading to me that our criticism there was that peter made that conclusion but here there is an expert saying that that's enough isn't that different isn't that expert testimony that the board can rely on and if it is and what cursory there may be and slightest engine there but i think the at the end of the day there has to be some evidence of an actual motivation in mind and i and why is an expert testimony that a skilled artisan would do this because of the similarities fish mean it's clear that to jima doesn't have the exact same structure as yours otherwise we'd be talking about it as a nation screaming but the real question is can we overturn the board fighting that a person of ordinary skill would have thank you your honor paul hughes i represent aptly named opus your honor the problem of out of position occupants with airbags was a well known problem and there were literally dozens of piece the prior art that were targeted at solving this properly took into account that the different types of diffusers here i know they're physically different structurally very similar but they seem to vary significantly different purposes a few responses that are not of the first council was just describing  whole for example the top of the diffuser nothing like that is claimed in the actual language of the claim itself there's no claim that describes any diffuser with any kind of structure nor has been there been any argument by  oughta live that there is anything from the specification that would constitute any sort of limitation that should be port imported or read into the claim language so the claim itself about the directing language started the  don't live took before the board the board expressly cited this passage and relied upon this as a party admission recognizing that the diffuser and to shima directly pointed gas towards the side vents certainly was substantial any kind of shape so long as it performs again according to article of the function of ensuring that enough gas rapidly exits now the board again as i said relied on ata lives on statements that the diffuser and hodgman directly points gas to the ensured that there was sufficient venting of the of the inflation air such that there was and so remarkably smooth deployment of the airbags in circumstances where there is an obstruction also there is clear evidence of  motivation to make the combination as as the court pointed out this fall of each one of the experts at appendix page seven hundred fifty six k very clear testimony as to why the combination would have been obvious why it was an obvious improvement to apparatus that has sufficient venting of gas in the event of an out of place occupants both of them you various clothes of all vents to solve that problem but taj met adds the additional way of solving that problem of having a diffuser to ensure that gas is properly directed so again the found that one skilled in the art who was trying to solve this problem out of position occupants would recognize these common solutions and that the additional feature and taj which was directed at solving that same problem would there was a motivation to combine that for use into the  technology in that we would understand how the diffuser would operate in different environments and could make that with you know clear predictability so for all of those reasons i think the board was well within substantial evidence of finding that that there was motivation to make the combination in the particular circumstances here and again there's simply no specific structure of the diffuser that's claimed here on live makes clear throughout their roofs that their claim that they assert this is a functional limitation that it has to perform the this away by the whole debate here is whether this all has been the question membrane right that's right on or i and for instance claim twenty i don't know how you could read it as anything other than being in the christian membrane yes i know that  and of itself might have been known in the prior art but that stitch necessarily has to be in the question memory to do exactly what the claim is saying right i don't think that's correct your honor and again i do think as you identif identify that stitching was not something that they were separately relying on i think they meant that quite clear that their argument rests lot and it hard to say you're not relying on it once in your claim this is not something that's just in the in the written description your honor but they're actually in the cla a take a step back the question is as you are pointed out does the stitching have to be applied directly to the fold or does it have to have the purpose of holding the folds in place the board at auto lives own invitation interpreted the claims to be as broad as possible to hold the folds in place in out all those initial response before the board that's appendix page two hundred seventy two zero nine they say it needs a plain ordinary meaning which is broadest possible in the institution decision the board agreed with that throughout i think ought to live as both wave in a stop from arguing a contrary interpretation at this point which would suggest that there needs to be something that's a fight but they never waive the argument that no matter how broadly even you interpret the feature it still has to be in the question of memory right while you know i don't think they've ever made that argument as a matter of claim can action they've they've articulated no no reason why this court should assert that there needs to be a stitch in the fall of the claim boundary itself and there are many other ways that one can accomplish the release of the temporarily civil holding feature with stitching without a stitch in the fold so for example the wall and device holds in place the board identified using breakaway tack stitching that doesn't isn't  attached to the fold directly but holds the whole device in place additionally the on hope of see more of that the board discusses it is in a mechanism where it is held together by a releasable seam that stitching across the seam that is broken when the device activates i think what claim twenty requires is stitching requires is that the mechanism that is released at the that does that the releasable temporary holding feature is stitching is it healthy gathered by stitching and when it release is it being released by the breaking of stitching and that certainly a stitch is necessarily holding the fold write it yes or it's holding the fold but to hold the fold the stitch doesn't have to be through the fall that's because for example the seymour device has an that holds the entire the folds together that holds the folds in place and this is why the boards construction is so many things dramatically different than what we're talking about an honest patent well you're i think it's clear the from the specification elsewhere that what the reason that you need this held in place is both so the airbag stays in one place and all the parts are properly positioned during storage cars you know go through lots of bumps they might go you know years and years before the airbag is actually use so you have to make sure that the various folds in the various valves are held in place and are all in position at the point when they need to be deployed so that when the various apparatuses their claim can operate and so that's the board's construction of temporarily school holding future is that all those places have to be held using the broadest reasonable interpretation says the temporary release of holding future ok to forget about whether or not they made the wrong argument let's talk about what the that claims actually require well i think the board was correct to say what the claims are requiring is a device that make sure that everything is held in place in the right place so that when the device is deployed and some fashion uses it yes in some fashion the thing that's doing the holding needs to be stitching and the thing that reall and both wall and an inch these are stitching mechanisms that are within the cushion membrane that are holding everything in place a pinch on one wall and both relate to things that are directly within the christian membrane but it's true that many of the valves in those devices are within the christian membrane but what's important about the really still temporary holding future is not whether or not it's in the christian membrane or not but that the cook the things that are in the christian membrane are being held securely in place such that when they need to be used they're all in the right place the thing that does that holding in the thing that then releases that means to be stitching according to claim twenty and the word had a little problem finding that that was that there was reason to find that in woman in pain and shame as well as in seymour and my colleague on the other side  references for example that she has there's various testimony that stitching to hold folds as well known in the are some examples of this or at page's appendix pages seven hundred forty six and appendix pages fourteen thirteen and again i think it's that recognition that stitching is so ubiquitous in the prior art is why ought to live is making the determination not to separately rest on that stitching argument because the part is so clear on that point and the worm certainly with him substantial evidence to make that determination but what do you read the language wherein the court is exceedingly anchored to the question membrane in some of the in some of the dependent claims that were also found invalid what what do you read understanding which is what the board not found and again there's been no challenge to the board's claim construction if i don't live and want to challenge the claim construction that the board made they had the opportunity to raise a claim construction we would have responded in kind there's not been any challenge to the claim construction that the board found and the point that the claim construction has not been challenged but simply an argument i think that that's been way if not one that ought to live and bill itself of having not advanced the argument to this court and having taken the direct i mean i know it's a translation so that's probably part of the difficulty but i don't read seventy and seventy one together to say that starting at instruction so so you're paragraph seventy cents and furthermore in the body image because the gas in expansion could be exhaust from protective exhaust fans thirty four and thirty four disposal both the left and right sides which is not interfered with the wind shield and then this is where it becomes important when there is interference with the interference objects even if the airbag expands the left in the right because the gas for expansion is exhausted from the protective gas exhaust fans thirty four and thirty four the increased pressure force of the interfering object can be prevented the the protective got the gas exhaust fans thirty four and thirty four are the fix fans now seventy one says that in early stage deployment there might not be sufficient venting but that then just turns the claim construction argument that there have to be continuous anting throughout for all the reasons we explained in our brief there is no requirement that there needs to be continuous venting at every really what this is is saying or what if the obstruction is so far forward that it doesn't allow this to unfold at all does it i can read this or at least it seems more likely to read th that the board says this is not commensurate with with their own claims scope because if the court for example looks at claims figures three in four of their their patent figures three in four of their own patent identified their structure in which there is no venting described to paragraph thirty nine of to shima in one expanse of the sides that's what ensures there's one thing that occurs the final point about this is paragraph seventy one only says that there's a lack of a gross opening not that there's no opening at all and all that teaches is that you need to have  vents which is exactly what they themselves claim their fix vents are not they never say that they're sufficient or alone by themselves enough they teach them in combination with other open close of events which is exactly what tajima does as the type of art they're trying that the borderline on to what's claimed and what shown in the six five three pat and again and one other thing with respect to the plane in order meaning we proposed a feature in the airbag in the air bag an interpretation of a plane or a meaning that it's a feature in the air bag that is released more contemporary holds a fold in the air bag in place again we didn't wait anything we always consistently said that these claims are about something in the actual membrane question itself that holds the holds together there is no instruction the quote it with without obstruction the cord extends at least partially closes the first and second clause will then so the claim of full scope the claims require that the combination would fully inflate with  without obstruction and that would not be possible if you were to use the type of the fuse or that the jima teaches you simply wouldn't have all the air would rush on the sides and you would have no way of propelling the from the back for  rectangular oval had nothing to do with the additional hole in the front to allow for the airbag to function properly when there was no it structure encountered a moment of thank your honor thank you for defining authority as we did not and in time