has served me with great distinction i'm sure you both recognize phil shang and i'd like to move his admission to the court he's a lawyer in good standing from the bar of a state that is not in very good standing which states that you know california you can i'm from oregon i'd like to embarrass california every time i can but thank you our first cases this morning we have a series of three cases docket numbers thirteen fourteen fifty five and fifty seven that are pan power management solutions versus advanced micro and the idea and intel i believe we're going to handle those as for oral argument purposes as although they're separate cases we're going to argue them at this point and getting mr harrison is basically the court cry interests of fun to have a power management solutions to your owners there are two fairly straightforward issues that are presented by this appeal the first issue is what is the proper parade of reference for the and internal and the second is does the internal functional circuit function require not only power but the first electrical input in order to perform that function the district courts claim to structure the earth with respect to both of these issues by importing limitations from the embod while ignoring other embodiments that are generally described in the investigation as well mr harrison i had it took me a long time to figure out what the dispute was because i didn't have the full context here of what the  d device is and what extra knoller internal means in terms of application to the technology here i'm presuming and maybe it's in the record because you s y nowadays but not necessarily on a separate substrate for the word it can be on a separate substrate but it's not required to be so it could be extortive and located on the same substrate as a matter of advice it would help us i think if you could give us more of that context we've said that in some cases you certainly do not through terms to achieve an outcome based on indifferent infringement analysis but it sure helps us to have that context when we're trying to figure out the meaning of claim term just perhaps maybe a little bit of background on that all of the accused devices have the internal functional circuit and export of functional circuits managed by separate power management apparatus now in describing the invention the specification first describes three particular constructs and isn't as important as a papum says holmes six line device so clearly it's not as simple as on or off of the se circuit otherwise you're just you're considering a turd such that you exclude one of the descriptions of the embod i find judge laurie's question reflects a lot of my analysis as well but there it seems quite logical to see that i relative to the substrate and that would be correct if it were not for the fact that the patent also in the specifications specifically describes a construct in which functional circuit as a is managed by power management apparatus as described in the invention and functional circuit c is also managed by a power management apparatus and functional circuit a and functional the invention and io switches to protect from externally induced latch up so in other words two circuits on the same integrated substrate communicating to each other if they didn't have those switches one could induce externally induced blackout in the other is you don't use the word internal and external there which leads me to conclude they're both internal so maybe now they disclose that and claim well the specifications does describe why you need io  switches between the two of them and it is to prevent extortionately induced loss lock up or latch up and isolate the functional circuit a from external circuitry which in this case would be functional circuit city you are correct think between the circuits as being external to one another if they were it functional circuit and functional circuits see were subject to the exact same power management apparatus and other words with functional circuit a powered up functional circusy also powered on and vice versa there would be no need for io switches to isolate those two yes last job is a situation where you have two circuits to functional servers that are communicating with one another and they are on a separate power management island is this functional circuit one and cultural circuit to communicate to each other that you can see my concern it's looking like this is protecting the whole substrate against some extra roll up power problem i missing there that extra malachai in one construct in the first construct this described in the patent you would be correct in other words where the entire substrate is subject to the same power  five six seven lines seven through peers to be twenty thank you and it is it talked about in that situation you don't have to we have to functional circuits on the same integrated substrate which are communicating to one another but are subject to separate power management regimes that utilize ios which is to avoid this externally induced latch up issue nothing at all to do with it whether the circuits are on a separate substrate colleague who is tom person i represent intel i'm also arguing on behalf of all of you kelly in this consolidated appeal to district court correctly resolve full of the claim construction issue the parts of the specification th enough and argues that those circuits are examples of external functional circuits that are on the same integrated circuit substrate as functional circuits a the circuit being power managed but the specification never describes functional circuits b or c as external and instead the patent simply describes them as separate from the functional circuits offender power management not as external there's nothing in the functional circuit  examples that is inconsistent with the district court's correct construction under that construction circuits b n c are both on the same substrate as functional circuit amy and so they're both internal circuit this reply brief and here today power management made an argument concerning the phrase externally induced lacha they cite the specifications discussion of externally into slash up in the summary of the invention part management says that this use of the word externally shows that the patent uses external to refer to different structures on the same integrated circuit sub st and they cited two columns seven lines fifty three to fifty six but it is i think chief judge reader recognized if you look at the full paragraph discussing the switch to prevent externally induced latch up a column seven lines forty two to fifty five this particular io switch control signals sent from off of the chip to the integrated circuit substrate how do we know that because that very paragraph repeatedly states that the particular switch is discussing or describing is between io pad and the internal circuit and the patent defines  or it couldn't make sense that that's right your honor because it's coming in through a pattern we know that the pad is the interface or the bonding between something external to the substrate and on the substrate in the pattern that actually defines pad precisely that agree with his argument that there isn't an on the network functional circuit a and you're on the same substrate yes your honor that's right close to here that's right you're right it doesn't it's not disclosed in the context of prior are something it seems to be a disclosure where in their reporting to indicate this is part of what they believe they've invented with the acquaintance another question but that the way i read the disclosure that's right your honor that has to functional circuits on the same substrate no it's not entirely clear whether that's actually an embodiment or not because it's in this strange section of the patent that's called general remarks on content and some of the examples in there are absolutely can't be embodiments so in calling nine there's one it is your honor but we know that some of the things in column nine that are under scripture of the invention if you go to call them nine lines twenty through forty nine it being on the same substrate was there any prosecution history i guess that would indicate why there would be disclosed embodiment which appears in the inventors but was part of his invention where it would be if i give internal right absolutely right your honor the specification the prosecution history are entirely consistent with the district court's construction of internal and external and the district courts are carefully with through that in its opinion now circuits in this it's not shown well if that's not the picture how do we find the x journal functional circuit in  this example i think it explicitly says in the specification that it's not shown so you can see it in the fit in that in the figure so it's what role is applying that the functional circuit is passing the data to signal the internal functional circuit in the extra functional circuit there is passing to the signal that signal comes in through a pad that's with that that's described in the specification every time an extra signals described it's just pride just coming into a pad onto the integrated circuit substrate it seems to me that would being led away from where on certain elements are constructed one of which is the clean internal functional circuit the use of the word where on there indicates that the internal functional circuit is on the integrated circuit substrate by contrast the elements that the claim describes that extra of the external power supply the external functional circuit in the structure that generates the extra early generated electrical control signals are never so i've covered the point the part of the specification that our management meant has pointed to in fact support rather than conflict with judge andrew's construction the second  the term internal functional circuit function appears within the larger limitation sub microsecond recovery of internal functional circuits function upon the assertion of the second externally generated electrical signals the parties dispute concerns two aspects of this limitation what function must be recovered in less than one microsecond and what it means to recover that function in other words what it means here to be functional to district courts construction clearly answers both of these questions first on the issue of what function must be recovered the patent expressly defines a functional circuit as a means for performing a specified electronic function or group of electronic functions so the function the most people covered is the specified function or group of functions of the internal functional circuit on the issue of what it means to actually function the specification explains internal functional circuit performs the electrical functions for which is designed when using signals available from the input output net that a column twelve lines fifty to sixty in other words the circuit performs its function when it uses the signals it sends to or receives from an external functional circuit and the specification also explains in column thirteen that when power is cut off those signals can't be or received that's a column thirteen lines fifty four to fifty five and line sixty five to sixty six in claim one of those signals are referred to as the first electrical signals so the circuit performs specified function using power and the first electrical signals that's exactly what the district court's construction set power management skill challenges to the construction in the briefing are both inconsistent and wrong is markman brief power management made only one argument with respect to internal functional circuits function that the term didn't need to be construed in fact our management argued that our construction was unnecessary because it was indistinguishable from the plain meaning permitted now claims that the district court's construction includes two improper limitations that the circuit perform its function using power and electrical signals but before the district court power management conceded that both of those limitations were inherently present stating it is market agree that it's self evident that the internal functional circuit could not perform any function without power and without some input that to page eight zero three seventy two of the joint appendix power management still concedes now the powers required to respect to the first electrical signals power management argues that the district court imported that limitation from the specification that's not right claim one requires the circuits function to be recovered upon the assertion of the second externally generated signal in claim one also explains what the assertion where on the internal functional circuit so far doesn't that kind of link internal x terminal to the substrate where on it's internal m m i'm missing something there not necessarily because the language doesn't prohibit other things from also being on that integrated circuit all that claim requires is that windows elements must be on the integrated  you can have that recognizes that functional circuits see the functional circuit a which the patent describes as being separate bios which is and which the patent describes i guess which is the purpose of  avoid externally induced lacha those can be on the same to integrated circuit substrate that's the only construction that allows that particular issue one thing i do want to address that that is a maybe somewhat helpful how do you decide the meat and bounds of the area for which power management is being circuits that would be the means and downs of the area for which current management is being appl it's the only area that allows you to have both functional circuits a and c operating on separate power islands as described in the specification adopting the court's construction simply reads out that embodied which is clearly a problem now the patent is somewhat confusing and part of the reason the patent is somewhat confusing is because if it was prosecuted by a process a individual and i'm not aware of any cases that hold that to a different standard in review that's why we have to focus on the claim correct correct and what we need to look at is the way that the patent gene ventile describes his invent is he first laid out the simplest of the embodiments of being budge that was where the power management was applied to the entirety of the substrate he then went on and explained that there are three constructs with respect to that particular the invention and those constructs are one where it is the person body to where you've got separate functional circuits on the same integrated circuit substrate but it doesn't matter if functional circuit b is it's referred to in the specification isn't affected by the power management of functional circuits act reading between the lines on that you've got to assume then that functional circuit a function circuit b do not communicate with one another because if they did they would need to be separated by i switches and it would actually collapse into a third construct which is functional circuits and functional circuit a which are managed by separate power management and are separated by latches with respect to be very great with respect to the internal functional circuits function the problem i think with the courts construction  particular with the apple ease briefing on that is that it requires the first electrical signal to be an input we agree that the first electrical signal is required but there's nothing in the specifications or files history nothing in the intrinsic record that prohibits power from being the sole input to functional circuit at and an