that's incorrect for several reasons while those figures have some facial similarities there are some distinct and important differences between them first of all where figure to the figure in the patent the figure that supports the circuit claims shows a timing difference various timing differences along the lengths of the various state of us is and control and timing signal passes second cod as if read as a physical implementation has barry singh consistencies in it third the code use disclosure explicitly explains that there is the same enablement period which each of the memory devices what figure two shows is a number of data busses write data buses and read data busses and they're labeled on the figures as one of four am one of five there and what could be its explains is that he wants to compensate for differences between different ones of those buses there's data busses that reach each different memory device and codee it says but he wants to compensate for differences between the lengths of those different buses but figure two shows those buses having the same length so that difference isn't shown in the figure the same is true with respect to the controller clock busses and those are shown as items eleven to be won eleven p to infer to the question about the it's ness of the rationale for finding obviousness was there was increased speed and that increased speed would have led one to conclude that changing the top policy or compensating for timing differences on a shared bus would have been obvious but the evidence does not support that conclusion in fact the evidence relied on by the commission was the testimony of invidious expert and what invidious experts said was that clock speed had conclusion the rationale was that clock speed would have made it obvious but invidious experts said that changing the typology had nothing to clock speed had nothing to do with changing the topology you further said that the fly by typology is not speed moreover at the time of the wear invention it was recognized in the industry that clock line lengths two different memory devices were to be the same and that showed in very specifications from the time the that clock line lengths to memory devices were to be the same and invidious expert agreed with that as well i thought what invidious expert actually said was the intent of this figure is to provide the system layout and also provide information related to the architecture of interconnections not the specific legs but how they are related to each other in terms of their routing if that's what he said how can you argue now and in your blue brief that that he didn't that he said the opposite well with respect to figure t figure two should not be read as showing a physical implementation for lions want to a two way in one hundred three that wasn't my question yes you're telling us what their expert said and yet when i look at the experts testimony he really didn't say what you you're claiming he said the opposite so are you now backing off of your reliance on their expert and making an alternative argument or are you telling me that that i'm misreading the experts testimony no your honor with respect to the commission's rationale for obviousness what the commission said on obviousness was that an increase in speed would have made changing the typology obvious that is not supported by the experts testimony with respect to the testimony that you're referring to with respect to figure two invidious expert agreed that figure two does not show a layout but what nvidia's experts said was that figure two shows an architectural representation or conceptual drawing and the reason that's problematic and is not substantial evidence to support the whole thing is that what that means is you need to ignore some parts of the figure while you but dark as a physical implementation other parts of the figure by calling it an architectural drawing whatever that means you ignore the fact that the data bus lines are said to be a funny while lengths but are shown in the figure as having equal lengths it requires ignoring the clock patent in a consistent way one of skill in the art when an approach that figure and accept some winds of the drawing as being in actual physical implementation and other lines as not and in fact when when asked why it was so hard to accept that in the figure in the figure it is experts said well graphically it works out that way well that way to draw the lines so that the data   taking as the physical implementation the clock line and the control on it figure to what disregarding everything else is inappropriate it is asso inconsistent with what was known at the time the where pa itself recognized that there were timing constraints and there were physical constraints on systems at the time of the invention and those constraints were that the clock line lengths were required to be equal the evidence supports that in the i b m specification the intel specification and even the standard at the time much later in two thousand and seven and a new standard was adopted the d d r three standard and that's the standard by which the infringing products operate that standard recognized a fundamental typology change and that fundamental typology change was to have a clock wind length differences on a shared control path recognizing it addresses and there is no doubt that the code is can and does address making timing adjustments but the timing adjustments that codice makes are very different from the timing adjustments that are claimed the timing adjustments in cody is are to adjust for differences in length between different process as i mentioned earlier there are multiple data buses going to each of the memory devices and what coding styles and his adjustment is adjust for differences in the lengths to the different busses what cody is also says is by maintaining the same unable made period for each of the memory devices the clock signal even those adjustments even when making those adjustments will reach each of the memory devices at the same signal and on shared clock had to each individual memory device that that's what the i t c relied upon in other words they made fact findings about how the timing and of length relate that are different than the ones that you're urging us and your honor we submit those findings are not supported by substantial evidence because they're contradicted by what code is actually teaches code is teaches that in a successful write operation there is a same enablement period for each of the memory devices and by a same enablement period that means that the clock line lengths need to be the same that's supported also by code is figure eight code is figure eight is a priority figure and shows the clock line drawn in the exact same way as the clock line in the invention of code geass and in the prior art as well in explaining that prior art figure eight there is a same unable to period coding it's never intended to change more likely to be significant and not well we look to the limitations of the claims and the small difference here is here your honor respectfully or not pertinent to the claims what we have in figure two is we have a shared control path with different li e a different way to pat each memory device and we have a system where it hasn't been there there's no dispute that the actual calibration system of code yes will compensate for such different length to each memory device the only dispute is whether a person of ordinary skill reading figure two would reach the conclusion that the code yes discloses a system could be among many different systems but the very least disclose the system with a shared control path that for a fly by configuration the need to compensate for bus like differences increased his clock speeds increased and the reason why this testimony was pertinent is because rambis is expert contended that a person of ordinary skill would interpret a multi drop device to be something that looks rather like this system but where the control signals reached each memory device essentially the same time so what this testimony supported was the idea that just clock speeds increased essentially the same time takes on a different meaning what might be good enough and close enough for purposes of a very slow system are not good enough and fast enough for a much faster system now that only goes to the issue of obviousness and we can tend not to the commission's findings of express anticipation as the and as the l j put in a footnote in his initial determination inherent anticipation as well because what co does not disclose is a system with multiple busses connecting connecting the controller with the memory devices we've heard a lot about  if even if the code is patent disclosed in a body to a person who read it all really carefully where the enablement period was the same and hypothetically figure two would have been drawn differently to best capture the preferred body mint of code geass it also discloses something else which is the drawing of figure two and a reasonable a reasonable person of ordinary skill in the art as in video testified and provide substantial evidence about would assume that it was california law that was being applied but yes i mean that's consistent with with the micron and hynix decisions elvis with this occurred before those decisions came out so this this occurred before those decisions came out with the document destruction actually was the same it was the same to course of conduct that rambis engaged in in california and for the same reasons that the other two that the district courts have the authority under california law to pierce as did the commission it would have helped if we had cited that perhaps but the factual circumstances are the same with respect to privilege we would just like to note that this is argument appears to be an improper collateral attack on previous district court judgments were privilege as part of the appendix before the court but it's a list it's a privilege log of all the documents that are in dispute i have copies of the court would like to see what the documents are these are all documents that were produced subject to privilege piercing in other cases and it's not up to the commission or up to the court here as a collateral attack to restore privileges to documents from earlier proceedings were privileged was lost and even if it now were readd to hear ramesses complaint notwithstanding the fact that privilege was for me the most successful way to see that is the figure two that we've been talking about so we have to look at what we're claimed seven and compare it to figure two and where it came seven is the control transmit circuitry it controls going down the line previously that's exactly what it shows it has the yes we will in our brief with a yellow line in the control circuitry coming down and it goes to the memory device goes first second third and any anyone knows anyone knows that that is going to take some amount of time and that is what the picture shows and so when where it claims control transmit circuitry with a shared control path that results in time differences figure to have to show that and the fact that it doesn't say exactly how much distance is not the point of all the factors any distance any sequence it's going to take time for the data to flower and then we need to have some way to for the system this complex system as you compiled up with more signals is just a function of the physical reality that the memory controller is very very small and then the dram devices the d m is much larger and so when they wanted to do a figure to explain to the public what we're talking about in this invention the memory controller piece was blown up and so there were there wasn't any point in spinning it out any further because everybody knows that it's just an iteration so to me the certain licenses include the wear pants but that just shows the link it doesn't show that anybody's actually engage in the type of talk to behavior that congress wanted when it authorized people to establish the right to come to the it would be substantial no question but we don't know and certainly there's no finding by the day that that amount of money was paid for these wear pattens grammars has over six hundred patents rambis licenses are you can produce the product but we're not going to tell you exactly which it's exactly it's associated with the licenses but not with this particular hand that we don't know the a day certainly didn't say that that that amount of money is connected to the wear pants and the i d c recently declared that's not enough occasional references investment in these patents members as you're not arguing that that they have to show that someone's actually practicing the patent the statute doesn't say practicing virus is substantially the best out there with assuming that all they have to do is cap licensing even if it's just clear that they're talking about industry absolutely one of the statute says substantial investment and licensing the patent concerns so the question you have to decide is whether on this record there is substantial investment not generally  of patent portfolio is like this was a technology portfolio and admittedly the licenses were entered into before these at least before some of these patents were issued so but but given that in order to practice the technology at least teaches how to make the product that the roundest is hasn't created so all this large amount of money could well been for actually the know how independent of any value placed on bands second it's still not clear which pan is motivating people to provide that money there's just that isn't there is a gap in connecting up the funds for these licenses with these wear pants or later with the forecasts it could be that one p just as the i t c got it out of the language in the six nine four opinion we submitted it where it says substantial investment and licensing the patent concern so you have to have by statute a link between the substantial investment and the patent in say the portfolio the patent concerns there are other provisions other ways to get to the i t c if you have a big company you have a lot of patents and you have a lot of employees there are other provisions for this provision which really had in mind universities with licenses fall before the six nine four opinion and the coaxial cable which this court just just a farm is very clear that you need a clear link so i think it was it was mixed it was a mixed bag and it's also as we also point out if there were tactical reasons rambis not to emphasize the license payments here not to link them up because that that creates a problem for them on exhaustion for sales of i would be so it's not like they got unfairly caught there were other opinions out there pointing the way they had to cheat it reaches to take advantage of make a few a few power points counsel said that anyone would know from looking at figure two that there are timing differences along the shared control path in the code and we respectfully submit that's just wrong clear that they are not and the analysis that anyone would know that we submit is based on hindsight it's classic hindsight based on what was much later disclosed not only in the in the d d r three specification itself the d d r three specification came out and said there's going to be a fundamental typology change in these products and that fundamental typology changes these systems are going to recognize and compensate for timing differences on shared control power that's that's what they do now and that's what invidious products do and that's why they infringe looking at cody's figure too and reading about into the figure is it to the d d r three standard and a picture from that standard and saying see there's two lines that are shaped like a now they must disclose the same thing that ignores the code does not talk about timing differences and it just because they say that the d d r three specification is what is required it's required for implementation of these products and that specification explains that there are timing differences on the shared control pattern that products must have that it must compensate for it right but the fact that they're requiring that for products that or saying that that's the standard does not does not mean there wasn't ever any patent out there that otherwise disclosed it is doesn't well not necessarily but is doesn't show those timing differences and doesn't explain that they exist so comparing to figures is really a conflation or incorporation of what is in the standard what is in the where patterns into is silent on the point so what may be the parents today with respect to how these products work is not apparent from just two single hands drawn and figure to not supported anywhere else and specifications