commotion to move the admission of my last park dimitri karsh said he's a member of the bar in good standing with the highest court of california i have knowledge of his credentials and i am satisfied that he necessary qualification demetrius clerked with me for more than a year and will be with me for about a little longer than eighteen months when he leaves he's a remarkable young man coming from russia at the age of thirteen excelling in everything you've ever done here he serves the court and me with great distinction always helpful incredibly thorough and i have no doubt that he'll be a valuable member of our which means that we will be able to see as much of him as we haven't read a basis but i don't believe that that goes to the merits of this application and so on i wanted to vote and i will make it a majority and we grant the motion of the term structure or sheep the structure of our sheets in the one three two patent can be used in liquid crystal display products such as monitors and televisions the one three two patent describes using a structured arc sheet to alter the pathway of white from discreet light sources to make that light appear more uniform to a viewer the commission erred in construing the term structural archie as a sheet constructed in the shape of an arc of the trees construction which includes language adapted from the specification more closely aligns with that that might be true that it works that way doesn't mean that that that's the phrasing has to be construed as to require that limitation does it well two things on that your honor first of all that one has to look at the of one has to look at how one of orders school new york with you the or understand the claim turn in her we have clear evidence of that the other thing is that really this is central to the way the invention works the point is that whenever you start with discreet white sources if you don't alter their pathway then you're not going to make it you're not going to make the illuminating white uniform and understand i have to say i'm puzzled by the same theme that judge malley appears to be puzzled by seems to me that if we do what you're asking us to do we would then read the specifications disclosure of the function of a particular structure into the definition of that we would give the structure in every case doesn't seem like what we've done historically nor what we ought to be doing if there's disclaimer that says only an arc sheet that performs the following function is a whole different ball of wax but i didn't see you making that argument there there's certainly disclosure that the ark sheep have to make white uniforms but these lights but the sheets make the white uniform in a very specific way and in this case the only way that they make the illuminating light uniform is by altering th claims and people can certainly claim broader than the disclosed in my comment i mean that happens all the time of it so why would we limit them to only the exact way it operates in the schools and well in this case once as including you know this is the critical feature of this invention language that denotes in the specification that all claims ought to be narrowly read in light of that criticality and i don't see that say that that by definition regardless of what your claims say that every possible thing that that alters the pathway of illuminating light read on your patent no because our claims are the same include loyalty about the invention won't work who will the invention not work if we adopt the interpretation by the commission i mean if we if we  and every single embodiment disclosed in the one three two patent shows that additionally during the prosecution history when the examiner considered various prior art references for example the in my reference the examiner stated that she for which actually contains a series of arcs was an arc sheet now that she contains a series of arcs not just a single arc but the examiner still referred to it as the arc she that's that's one of the problems with the adopted construction is the is under the adopted construction the she has to be shaped in the construct in the shape of a single or not multiple arks know this you know my reference she for as most people are not only did and the in the commission's construction drew is directly at odds with that it simply won't work now another point is is that the the commission construction is incorrect because it relies on a disclaimer where none exists to find a disclaimer whatever also there in the commission's opinion they use the wor they state in the commission's opinion what it states is that it is that a charter teaches a way they might not use the exact wording disclaimer but they they say that they say that it saying a brief i read them that well they made arguments certainly referring to disclaimer language so i would say that they did i think finding and an unequivocal disclaimer and looking at either the intrinsic evidence or the prosecution that a decision maker will grab on to one of them but this whole discussion started on the basis of you saying that the commission found this clue and we're just pressing you on that that's certainly and i understand or agree i think you  i think the problem here is your honor that all of the backgrounds the background in the specification criticizes those sheet there are other teachings in the specification for example the specification itself says that shows that the materials of the sheet can be freely changed and tight but now we're finally getting back to my question which you never answered so where in the written description is there anything that refers to the term are like or arc or similar i mean everything i read is talking about arcs and they even talk about the preferred embodiment having a particular shape or within certain degree so where do you find in the written description something that says well it doesn't really have to be in  honor i would contend that there is really no difference between an arc and the term arc like we're not asserting that there is well then why are you have checking into the claim constructions because i there is no difference then the claim possession should be something right we're objecting to the claim construction for several reasons first of all as i mentioned one of the key problems is that that construction requires that the entire sheet be shaped or constructed in the shape of a single arc that's a problem particularly given the intrinsic evidence including the prosecution history well council you're into rebuttal time would you like to save the remainder i would like to save the remainder of my time for about oh yes ru on the other side would have his best arguments as at least a salmon or thought that a sheet that contained multiple are would be covered do you read this construction as excluding a shape that they're actually multiple routes put together into a single structure but there is no limitation in the language of claims on how these structures are cheap maybe fifty gathered the point is is that they are individual that are arrange a particular way in the in my reference and that is with the famine are noted by then referring in particular and rejecting are cheap and particular claim not original claim nine which claims to our keep he does not just refer again the issue is not that it is a flat sheet containing some sort of micro particles which was specifically considered to be pretty problematic prior art in the specification and rather it is she constructed in the shape of an arc that may be arranged and different ways right so it would be strange to read the commission's conclusion to just say that it had to be in just one arc because it finds that there was no infringements with respect to the or there was anticipation where there were two arcs in the same place right will actually be found that the hour if it's a close up to mark and different plans are on or right i'm sorry and different place but still to our so if we were to say the construction said it it only had to be one arc as your friends on the other side just seem to say that wouldn't that wouldn't be consistent with all the rest of the commission treated as two are cheap i don't understand the commission below to concede that a single sheet with two arcs with an arch and make that reference to yellow might miss i may be misremembering you represent the have multiple individual arcs joins together as in the in my reference the issue is that you still have individual structures individual shapes that are arranged you do not have a completely flat she with respect to another and since the acquired at least two there can be more than you know more than two sheets each one is the single are correct in that way there's the figures that that are shown actually in the patent actually have the two arcs attached to each other correct so i think the point that you're making at the two arcs can be attached you can even be three or four x perhaps but each one is a separate sheet so it's really multiple she corrects around again that the only requirement good morning your honor the commission construed structured arc sheet in the singular and if you look in the patent figures as data meletus pointed sheet and the claim requires two arc sheet this is a plain meaning case the words mean what they say there's no need to read anything in structured our sheet she constructed in the shape of an r i but the specifications doesn't talk about anything having to do with micro particle curvatures or micro particle bonds and in fact the only place that the specifications even refers to micro particle is where it's talking about the prior art flat optical sheet that has micro particles and the problem with the fusion of light which is precisely the problem that they were trying to overcome and that's why they can't really capture that but the patent is clear that an arc sheet is a sheet constructed in the shape of an art not a flat sheet with a bunch of arc on it where precisely does the patents and the patents refer you'd be arguing well this is not as broad claims it includes any form of a structure that could be described as an arc she were somebody really sophisticated as a bunch of bunk phones that are in the shape it works well first of all the pad i don't see you're not telling me where you guys from drawing right you're on i think if you go back to the background and you look at the problem they were trying to solve they specifically refer to these flat optical she micro particles which are the bumps within the sheets that you're referring to and they said this is a problem because the light is to fuse and we have to figure out a way around it and what we're going to do we're going to spend the entire sheet like this and that's how they solve the problem under any claim construction under sign or can you do not have to address and validity but you can but we need if we need to equivalent and in taiwan the taiwanese equivalent of this patent failed to issue reflecting cover that has two layers six if you want to six fifty two layers six fifty two blocks or stops the pathway of light does not alter its pathway additionally even if our construction were not adopted however your tree contends that layer no i'm not saying that i'm not saying that the structure as disclosed as a whole doesn't do that what i am saying is that layer six fifty two doesn't do that and there's no evidence that it does that's layer that just sits on top of the reflective during the rejection during the single opposite action that issue during the prosecution history the examiner stated that in my dispose of the arc sheet for which is a sheath that contains multiple arcs where in a curvature diameter of the arc is longer than the diameter of light source the examiner was clearly referring to the arc sheet for as the structure of our sheet but on the other hand when he was restoring the curvature he was only referring to the curvature of an arc within that multi arc structure