hinged on a single document to decipher documents that is not prior art and it's not an infringement defense turned entirely on limitations that are not part of the claims that is not enough to sustain the verdict at the very least the talking is entitled to a trial not painted by the just site for documents i'd like to start first invalidity there is not sufficient evidence and certainly not evidence that a jury could find by this was submitted to the f c c for the critical because he testified only that it was submitted to the government agency at some point in time but he did not know when he did not know when in fact he testified  on on on this very page i don't know when this document was given to the public i just know that it was readily available to anyone at g i who general instrument in the company at which he works and so yes the jury could in by certainly the government agents that this was submitted to the public agency it was submitted to but he does no date no date for that even if you would allow an inference which i don't think you can but even this is this that's when they're playing they're playing a death if i'm in the right place they're playing a deposition from some other trial and the expert actually denies that it means what people are trying to make it mean but on the it says the san diego division had presented a proponent system to the f c c so two point your honor one the witness says no i don't think so and i haven't seen anything that tells me that the case that he denies it but even if you would allow the question to be taken for what it says it says only that some to decipher system was presented to the f c c and under this court case are particularly nori and strike or a presentation without knowing whether  at most you can get from this that it was submitted to the f c c the fact that that or that there was a presentation made to the f c c there is no evidence that the document itself in history dorie document was given to anybody or to them at the f c c it was given so under no where in strike or a presentation alone without evidence that the document itself was given would not be enough we also know that under this court case all submission to a government agency alone is not enough i like that where now all of this information from a document is being presented to a group of interested people two points if you look on a eight three three three so the premise of your question is wrong the second point though that i would make and i think this is important which is that this is the lawyer speaking here the witness that neither the witness denies it the witness says no i don't think so so the question is sir when you joined g i in  patent no your honor and in fact as i mentioned before all it says is it was presented it doesn't say that that the that the document was given and it's the document that is allegedly anticipatory and ignore in strike or the presentation was given but there was no proof that the abstract had actually been handed out it was abstract that was in terms of a tory and this court affirmed that setting aside a jury verdict based on that evidence that this is very similar to that there's even if the documents even if you assumed there was some presentation made to the f t c and there's no evidence of who was who received the presentation just tonight we don't know whether it was given to the working group there's no testimony to that effect there's no testimony who was on the working group that that allege y heard it there's no testimony under what restrictions that working group was receiving information from other companies there's no known case of this court upholding the invalidity of a patent based on such a thin record of  something being prior art cooper cannon case on which they put heavy reliance is entirely different this fact there were nine companies nine companies involved that had the document the testimony was that they were expressly allowed to share the information and in fact had shared the information but what about let's let's  under that document as there was a crease impatient ok why and then went to the advisory committee why wouldn't giving it to the advisory committee before the priority date be sufficient hearing evidence from other companies you know even if you assume it is the working group is made up of people from other companies the problem of the sessions of the visor public crime there's no evidence of that you know but it's that's the way the f documents disclose i mean there's no question that the advisory committee is a public body there's conduct proceedings in public there's no evidence of that in this record your honor there is any question about i mean that you know they did this with their burden to evidence to believe that so the question is whether there was evidence present to the jury from which it could find by clear and convincing evidence that this document was available in the in the four or five short weeks between its date on it and when it's the this was given that this was publicly available which this court applies the standard reasonably available to you a certain segment of the interested public and it's a it's a big stretch from this one page of deposition from he explained that it was about something different and then he denied that that that this that his previous testimony shows that it was available they're trying to take three i don't know i don't know from leery about when it was  i don't know from hamilton about when it was available and i don't know from henderson about when it was available and get an inference that it was a metal and just like taking and threw in the zero but the rope with the rope and getting something and it certainly can't be clear and convincing evidence that it was available on those the three thousand to two four three verdict they hinge they're trying to affirm that based on the word and we don't dispute that the discipline to structure is right video signal format means the number of scan lines and whether it's progressive or interlaced but it's a video signal from a so seven twenty i is a video signal format and if you take that and process it through the scalar is it true if you take seven twenty i mean you process that through the well with they're trying to read the word according to an not according to their natural meanings i mean the big everyone agrees that a video signal format of the letter supplemental files for us right that have but it's not really a claim which option issued because we agree with the claim construction means they're just a video signal format doesn't mean the letter and the number but is processing according to the letter in the number take seven twenty i and process that in come up with a different video signal format seven twenty p so that is in a format is like the eight be in so when you take one if it seven twenty i is a different instruction that was given to the jury and so on and once you have absolutely no uncertainty about it you also concluded that the only way that could be avoided was by coming to a different view than you're just forcing the indisputable meaning processing according to a different video signal format with different video signal format always being a and b if they agree that seven twenty i is a video signal format their expert agrees that seven twenty p is a different  context i mean i agree with the questions of the court to both literally and hamilton establish that it was given to the f c c but you have to start before that which is the context which this was a response to the evidence shows this was a response to an invitation by the c from interested members of the public ip industry participants to come up with a common standard a common broadcast standard for high definition television that's what was going on right there that's why they could have i understand gee i was in a proselytizing mode he says i don't know the exact date and that there is a difference between i don't know the exact date right and i know sort of range i remember your position being a range is sufficiently attested to implies when i got there we're somewhere and i think it's a context of what he's talking about is and that's why you started it want to read the whole truth is being queried about the time that he got there and they want to know the counsel cross examine want to know exactly what the data is and his point is i was talking about pre the whole context of the cross examination that's why we have juries you know look at witnesses and hear examinations rather than try to do it on a cold record the whole context is when i got there gee i was excited about it everybody is talking about a press releases were handed to me and then he says in response the public the agency had a copy of it his whole point is that when i got there that's what was going on where you got there was an agency had a copy of it that's on that i believe that's on a take two to the agency had a copy of it and he's talking about the period that he got there but again the same is true it's not just mr leary it's mr hamilton who does say absolutely in the prior case that the decider was given a digital system was given to the a presentation of the system to the f c c and there's a gap between that and the giving of the specific document with what supports the proposition that the document was given to the s s wasn't there you look at the document itself it says submitted by with a particular date on it and when you look at the documents clearly a formal presentation to be submitted to somebody and the only body that anybody would be submitting something like this to is the f c c in response to the f c c that invitation to make submissions for broadcast standards which is exactly what the said and to every member and you you have some point about how standing here with their evidence of that or is it something you i've i will only tell you i believe there was evidence of that that there was a deadline that they were meeting the deadline that the deadline was june of one thousand nine hundred eighty four participants members of the public interested in the art exercising reasonability bill does not remember the statutory language itself just as it had to be known or used by others and the standard has been the gloss it's been put on it by this court and others  has been that it's not enough just to be known by others but also have to be known by others who are under no obligation of secrecy it's based on the twin policies of the patent law one is novelty and so this is known by others it's not novel says in the cases of said it's not enough it's known by others those of g i it has been known by others who are under no obligation of secrecy because that's the other policy of the patent office which is disclosure so somebody else came up with it first but then held it secret and didn't want to share it with the public then will say to the second inventor will reward you with that because you are going to disclose it to the public so that's what comes down to the actual standard the way known by others is played out in the case is to say the increase is whether or not is known by others interested in the art who are not who did not seek to conceal it we didn't take affirmative steps to conceal it so that's a question that the jury had  be known to others interested in the art to exercise reasonable diligence and whether or not it's sufficient when it's known to others who didn't act to conceal it a number of the courts cases who are cameras example on both sides of on both sides you see so much discussion of whether or not another company was keeping something confidential and i stand company that has you need something more than just having a single company with a series of employees that happen to have some knowledge  we're ultimately looking for is whether or not a member of the public interest of the art in the art could obtain the information through your diligence in the cases answer that by looking at our that is of the the other folks who had the other companies the other join propose a standard to convince the public to adopt the digital cipher standard and so when they tout the standard press releases when hamilton comes to the company being aware of the did a paper stand or a public standard to be submitted to a public body absolutely was a basis for the jury to infer that any body like hamilton and somebody outside g i who want to know what it was i hear you're proposing a dramatic new all digital standard that's going to change the world and that's what you want me as a member of the public to adopt a digital number the public to adopt what does that standard look like if you're trying to get somebody to adopt the standard you're proposing of course you can disclose it to them if the asked and what i'm asking you is you saying fretfully is constituted that in the page at least and the fact that hamilton who is outside the company when he joined us was aware of the decipher the tells you the press releases work that they were doing what they intended what the company intended when it made this past breakthrough proposal to the f c c and buys to the f c c actually mean to other industry participants who they are trying to persuade to adopt the working party before the priority date and there's no reason to there's no concrete evidence that the whole point was the only reason this is submitted was that the working party could review it so i guess i just use and you don't feel like evidence before the jury and the jury was asking whether or not knowledge in the possession of general instruments those of the others remember the other lardy knew it that's conceded so the question is whether the knowledge they have is publicly available really care about the f c c and maybe that's all i care about maybe i think that the fact that the g i employees walking around the building knew about it isn't enough and the fact that there was some promotional standard the whole point of which again was to persuade the members of the interest of public other this is a standard they should up the jury therefore was absolutely entitled on that record to conclude as it did that this information was available not only known by others in g i but was available to other members outside g i who were interested in this new all digital puzzle the key i was trying to persuade the interested public to adopt that was the whole point and that's the basis for a jury's inference that was available to he did that they did just buy for was thrown around in the company for many different systems it was used to label many different things and he did not like that that testimony from the previous trial supported that the document was presented to the f e c by the critical date there is absolutely no evidence in the record that anyone testified that the documents publicly available the standard is known known general meaning of known is known by the relevant public it's not knowledge by others it's known by others and the court has consistently interpreted that to mean it must be available to the relevant public knowledge within the company is not enough that's all scott leary testified to that's all he testified to that the testimony where he says at some point the government agency cross that immediately proceeded to focus on what he knew as he came to the company so that it was in front of all of the contacts and i think it's redirect examination or yours you're right it is the beginning of redirect judge trying to but i don't think