pleased to court for the most part got it right in the section three two seven investigation before the court today but even in the first part of today's argument i'm going to address one issue where the i t c got it wrong specifically the i p c c issues that third electrical conductors and the electrical reset switch in addition to commission fail to acknowledge let alone address the secondary consideration that is with respect to the one five one starting with the content of the interpretation of that term affects how one reads whether or not their skin contains the rougher it or not because the function of the movable bridge into claims to connect the three conductors and the argument here is the bare skin what they call a movable bridge whether it's anyone's definition doesn't connect those conductors you never asked for a construction that read a function into the concept of move up a bridge isn't there a movable structure there is that it doesn't connect  three conductors circuit breaker forty six doesn't connect the three conductors in that you're asking us to construe the term to require that was a claim of software choirs i don't think that you need to construe to the term to require that the claim to do will break in and then they claim language itself is required to connect the three and factor was understood viewed by the parties experts the bear thing didn't disclose the movable first the first and only time it was ever suggested it's a clean one of the one fifty one pattern we go down to about three quarters of the way through that claiming we have an element to be against the first second and third electric conductors and if we go at the end of that claim it says that first conductor comprises a movable bridge capable of electrically connecting the first second and third electrical conductors to each other so regardless of how you interpret the whole bridge the conductors that the i t c found are connected to the other by circuit breaker forty six which are eleven thirty and thirty eight the i p c found that they were connected in the single phase environment conductor thirty eight is not invincible size model and it's only the politics and we know that because  there's no disclosure of why you would need more than one single phase stop and certainly figure one only discotheques discloses why it's so the second problem with the movable bridge construction and once again this doesn't depend on how you construe comprise eleven they're completely separate eligible can be that limitation regardless of how you interpret a figure one other was fine one requires that the movable bridge comprise the first conductor that's not here in bear since forty six and eleven  are separate completely separate separate elements so when you move past movable bridge the same concern for the same point can be made with respect to the requirement that you'd have first second third electrical conductors because once again you get a figure one the only one body and where there are three conductors is a polyphase environment in which they're not all connected to each other because you get a face to face ball which is a one is not present yesterday an apple versus i t c the court held that and reversed the i t c on an obviousness decision finding quote the i p c however never even mentioned much less weight as part of the obviousness analysis of secondary consideration of evidence apple presented its seat only that it did not review the l g finding regarding secondary considerations this is not adequate under our law the i p c here on the one five one patent didn't say anything about second well difficult but maybe the question is what you said about the secondary consideration and i'm not as familiar with those those i'm only with respect to the apple i t c case but it seems to me here at least with respect to your briefings you consumer products safety staff the letter ends with the new lesson receptacle g s t id major step forward for improving electrical shock protection provided by g s yes the protections that are being talked about here protections for end of life reversed wiring are incorporated in the inventions that are in the twentieth don't prevail on your obviousness argument with regard to claim one you separately argues that the i its conclusions regarding domestic industry let me ask you why in the world didn't you allege domestic industry for all the claims that you were serving ought to be subject to the exclusion order and i guess i  don't know i didn't see law as well as you clearly do but if you have an alleged domestic industry today for claims thirty nine then what's the point of having a trial on claims thirty nine b could you have done you have to of claims within the patent not to limit yourself to a single claim because what you've done by limiting your allegation of domestic interfere to claim one is you end up here before us with the holding of infringement of all these other claims validity of these other claims and no domestic industries so your failure to have alleged domestic industry for the other claims is depriving your patente of a win across the board here and so i don't understand why you wouldn't have done that usually there questions firstly they can amend the record and we open the record just put on new evidence so yes it could have responded to whatever you pointed to but it wouldn't be an opportunity to present new evidence and secondly you're not suggesting i didn't do you suggest in the re consideration non obviousness i want to clarify what happened here the commission was concerned about parent inconsistency in the l g s claim construction and alerted both parties to that concern in a public notice saying we think you construed frenchman's the clients from freshman differently for the purposes of politically than the commission asked the parties to tell the commission what the consequences would be of changing the structure in response to that request for additional briefing that's where we got the single sentence from lovett's on which does contain the string side to some expert testimony and also a stream side tempting to incorporate by reference case the court looked at the evidence that the district judge considered and came to an officer conclusion of the district judge as to the legal relevance of that evidence so that it's within the purview of this court to do  case tells us there's two categories of secondary consideration of evidence that as a legal matter are not relevant where the elements relied upon are found in the prior art and where the elements relied on are not found in evidence of a secondary consideration is found in the virus the second category of evidence that they argue was secondary consideration non obviousness is the reset switch that they say on page twenty nine prevents about to be clear there are some valid claims in these ads but the independent claims are hard to draw with respect to the prior art of the commission looked at the scope and content of the prior art found that claim one of the one conducts electricity and when that breaker is connected to the conductor loves to thirty and thirty a day and then there's just no dispute that in that configuration electricity is being conducted and where we choose to conceptually say this is a conductor of this is not a conductor is it somewhat arbitrary because it is a argument was made because of the i t c here today contended that because we didn't appeal the commission's decision to calling one of the once and for patent was invalid and that the same bear skin reference was used we're not allowed to argue today not appealing entirely different as even if it's same prior and so the whole first ten minutes of my argument is explained why doesn't have three conductors we haven't conceded that those three guys with conductors are the key to the secondary consideration because that's what allows you that recent mock ups would allow she would have this advantage where you were able to deal with the reverse wire problem and the end of life problem that the consumer product safety commission is talking about so this is totally an ecstasy and that's been tired because of their argument this whole concession to hear the word concession several that's what that's based on a need to commit big industry can you tell me where in the record you put forth argument or evidence regarding reestablishment of electrical continuity which is the additional element added by claimed seven  so i'm supposed to extrapolate from his description that this satisfies the language of claim seven without any allegation by him or argument by him that does not argue with its form over substance is very straightforward it says it works that way that's how you