a please the core there are two means plus function limitations at issue before the court here and with respect to each there is sufficient structure disclosed in the specification under the  but the district court should not have applied the algorithm rule to either limitation in this case with respect to the retrieving means the corresponding structure is a well known computer function and with respect to the accessing means it is dat were a data structure and the court has never applied its algorithm rule to data or data structures i would like to start with the retrieving means and then go to the accessing means with respect to the retrieving means there is structure disclosed in the specification the specification discloses that the textual and graphical information is retrieved from a database i'm having trouble the thing ok there are several distinctions between this case and aristocrat to the first distinction is that to a person of ordinary skill the art retrieval from a database is a one step algorithm the second is that unlike aristocrat two where the lack of algorithm went to the point of novelty of the invention here the alleged lack of an algorithm goes to a limitation where there is lots of prior art that when a person of ordinary distinction with nothing they rely on and not opinion that we suggest that there is an exception to the rule stated which seems to me to be quite wrong well that this court's prior unpublished decision microsoft word document go find the location of a work and the court's decision relies upon undisputed expert testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art could achieve that function of the invention of what was new it was covered by the means plus function algorithm and i'm sorry that means bill's function claim there is no algorithm because nothing comes to mind to a person of ordinary skill man when they see that in a specification because nobody's ever done it before here when a person of ordinary skill in the art reads a specification it immediately comes to mind all there just retrieving information from a database i'm at there's lots of ways to do that i can go buy a piece of software off the shelf we are i execute that in one step and this is really what professor polish was explaining that i think is a significant difference between this case and the aristocrat to case there are significant because of the concept of encapsulation in computer science there are certain functions that many years ago people have programmed them and to a person of ordinary skill eric the function and the algorithm merge together the undisputed evidence here is that a person of ordinary skill in the art major speech somebody who uses database systems well if that person is using a database system they know they can go buy one for which they send a single command and the single command retrieve the data from a database and  professor polish give some other examples of this saving a document to a desk on this course prior decisions have not required disclosure of a detailed algorithm we enter the information is well because there is well several ways number one in this case we disclose it one step algorithm number two in this case there is implicit disclosure of an algorithm to a person of ordinary specification implicitly discloses to a person of ordinary skill in the art a class of algorithms because the undisputed testimony is that persons of ordinary skill in the art knew how to retrieve information from a database long before this pattern was file that the software is retrieving the information from a database to a person of ordinary skill in the art that is the disclosure of a one step algorithm but that's pretty life i mean your problem seems to me is that the precisely the issue that ar refer to crack to where the other side was actually arguing that and they had one built in the art that they not testimony one field in the art that they would have been able to discern met and the court explicitly rejected it they said no that's aristocrat to the testimony was somebody would have known how to program this here the testimony is people already have programmed it and when somebody reads this disclosure that class of algorithms is to go back well your honor we think we think there is sufficient evidence in the record there's undisputed expert testimony in the record here that a person of ordinary skill in the art knew how to retrieve information from a database or we should  are numerous decisions of this court which sanction the use of implicit disclosure docile intel at melle aristocrat one and even aristocrat to your the end of aristocrat to there's a discussion of the many medical instrumentation case and there's a sentence which suggests that you could have implicit disclosure if one of ordinary skill in the art would know what you're talking about here again the undisputed testimony is that database retrieval was well known at the time of the invention and when you disclose to a person of ordinary skill in the art that you're retrieving data from a database that implicitly discloses to them a class of algorithms with is this said well listen crudes i suppose let me give you an absurd example suppose you had a machine that was able to actually people having trouble bending of the person in there my my five year old ties the shoes sometimes with which without his foot being in the shoe so that this court's prior cases that recognize implicit disclosure for example the a pathway is simply data that is a path from one piece of information to another piece a commission one who takes you from one to the other allows you to find the other piece of information it seems to me an aristocrat too they distinguish those cases on and when they were talking about implicit faith that that that that really is a question of how much detail is required but they made quite clear that the question enough and not when the algorithm that was disclosed was described with  argument relies upon the fact that when a person of ordinary skill in the air reads retrieve from a database that's a one step function to a person of ordinary skill you are the example our expert gave us what it said means for adding a plus b well there the algorithm for adding a plus b is just to add a plus b that's what a person of ordinary skill new york would put into their software the same thing is true here when a person of ordinary skill or wants to retrieve something from a database they do the procedure call to retrieve something from a database because long ago somebody else wrote software that allows you to retrieve data from a database all right mr steadman you have agreed to put your time with mr what kind what specifically do you think should have been in there happen to satisfy aristocrat the the clear has given a lot of guidance as to what will work and will not work it's not our job as the defendants in a case where there was no disclosure to say what would have been enough in this case doesn't present a question well the truth what you're saying is in washington and i think in you'd like to know well i guess our answer to that is our guidance comes from the cases of what has been adjudged to be enough and what hasn't been to just be enough we're not position to say what would have been enough if you look at the reply very filed by m page nine footnotes six you will see that they are claiming that it's the specific architecture of these limitations which is the point of novelty of the invention that's the same position they took on reexamination because they added at least some of these limitations in order to get around the prior art we don't know what it was that's in the invention that should have been disclosed that was the point of novelty for the retrieving function in the accessing function because it was not disclosed something should of windows the sentence could have said it is the well known retrieving function used by the windows program excel to retrieve data from the expel excel spreadsheet then there would at least be a known algorithm to which someone could say is the  to school more will know that the algorithm involved it wouldn't even have been enough if the specification itself said there were no algorithms and left it at that and this court held environment deano exactly that the court held interrelated graphical information to said search textual information isn't tallackson that is because it was added in order to overcome the prior art the specific architecture of that retrieving function and that accessing function is what the invention is and yet it's not supposed to but even if it were a basic function even if it were so basic that everyone knows it would still have to be disclosed and that graphics to text pathway recited and claim one was an innovation that rendered multimedia searching something a child with means they are claiming that the architecture of that particular issue is the innovation but as i said even if it were and in that case there was x per testimony that the title of the of the article itself was enough to disclose to a person a skill in the are a particular algorithm here there is no title and specifications there's nothing in the specification might be my call it says it's disclosed by the words it is retrieve but that's exactly the same as the claim to function retrieving and and is retrieve i want to bring two things to the court's attention during my time one is and has not come up this morning in oral argument they have an argument that the dismissal without prejudice of the old one a patent was error they did not disclose in their brief that the that there was a second pending case involving that patent we fully briefed that in that second pending case judge eagle has now found that patent itself invalid on other grounds and that is on appeal to this court now so we contend there was no error but even if there were the court's attention also has not come up this morning is that after the briefing was complete in this case there was another case on the so called algorithm rule that is black work versus desire to learn and even more than a wrist a crowd it consider almost word for word each of the arguments raised in their briefs and rejects them and so we would contend that between aristocrats two and blackboard every single legal issue that's raised in this case has aristocrats into the difficult work yes in letters presented after the briefing both parties discussed aristocrats and they submitted their reasons for why it applied or not yes your honor is that in the record are the letters in the record i do not believe that they are on the record like him i have one more thing i just wanted to know you asked whether it was a fact question for re man because this is an issue of claim construction it's a matter of the sport but with that i yield the balance of my time there for questions f a great your honor with respect to aristocrat and i'm your honor asking a question during my remarks and then followed up with mr steadman on the application  implicit disclosure and that the aristocrat addressing in re docile did not really deal with the implicit disclosure aspect of docile which was the implicit disclosure of a computer it dealt with the issue of whether you had disclosed any algorithm at all because only the word known algorithms it was used at the end of the aristocratic case there is language addressing the medical instrumentation opinion which says here as in medical instrumentation the patent does not disclose the required algorithm or algorithms and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize the patent as disclosing any algorithm at all i suggest that that and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize the patent as disclosing any algorithm at all is an acknowledgement given this court's prior decisions in atmel in intel and that there could be an implicit disclosure of corresponding structure that aristocrat itself acknowledges that there can be an explicit implicit disclosure of corresponding structure and here the undisputed expert testimony is that is precisely what you have because these are both well known things are expert even gave examples of how these were in the prior art we showed with the intrinsic evidence how the examiner understood the accessing means to be  pathway that was disclosed by the hyperlink prior art it's the same example our expert referred to so in both of these cases we have well known functions that when the person of ordinary skill only are reads the specification they understand that there is an implicit disclosure of algorithms and in the case of the retrieving means there is an exquisite disclosure because here there's a merger between the function and the algorithm because to a person of ordinary skill  something from a database is a one step algorithm just as adding two numbers together is a one step algorithm just as saving a document to a disk is it one step call to the operating system cool i'm proud i can some counsel for the opponent home products international an american manufacturer ironing boards or any tapes this case arises out of the commerce department third administrative review of the and work on these products in that review commerce found that the chinese export or since hardware had submitted information that was not reliable that was false that was unbelievable but basically million with  and the and the arguments made by type by the american manufacturing that case gleason are very similar to the arguments we made sensually that there was no showing of irreparable harm the court presumed that there was an agreement to reimburse the dumping duties that the imported would have to pay and that that that was the finding by the by the court of presumption by the court and i can assure you our case there is no reimbursement agreement from since hardware to the importers who have to put in the record in our case we showed that since hardware stated didn't even know the identities of the u in the next sentence your honor the court said in other words this quote acknowledges the distinct probability that a typo will ultimately incur the charge will lose customers so i suppose one could say that was an  explicit finding but there was certainly a finding a probability and not in our case that there can be no such finding probability attitude to complete my answer not true the court is where this but yesterday the  of file the petition for rehearing or rehearing a bump in which they made the argument that as a matter of fact there was no reimbursement in the type of case either and there is court didn't discuss that this right this came a new from this court that is the whole discussion of the reimbursement of money being paid by the chinese export it to us importers came up with the first time to mexico and that's manufacturer loses his opportunity to challenge a duty for being too low then the foreign manufacturer should get a similar position but that is that doesn't go to the question of how where is the the harm certainly is felt by the import of the import it has to end up as to pay that money the foreign export or could be harmed by a high duty ridges in this case not because of the assessment on deeds of a total strange move the case that doesn't in the case of this court has ruled that even if their duties are liquidated there still are issues that survived the liquidation for example the the whether or not the deposit rate should remain in  to past countries that applies to the deposit on imports going forward so that that survives if then survives but they can't we cood the path and well it's not good for them to recoup because it's not their money the should have been assessed on the importance and we're talking now about cup current business operations since harbor wants to ship ironing boards to the united states have porter that is what is going to have to one hundred fifty seven point six eight percent and the chances are going to be very very few imports under these circumstances so since hardware could try to convince the court to that it's the city to convert that part of the session was wrong to do should be reduced then a new deposit would go into effect if they're successful and that new deposit could help them in their current business that is a function of the third view results you're on the third of your results is not we're not just limited to the assessment  contention that type of will suffer no harm because it did not directly post any of the cash deposits for the entries these potential over charges would remain a part of any transaction between twenty five and it's domestic importers similarly here the transactions at issue do remain a part of the relationship between since hardware and its importers it may want to think probability that they'll incur the charge or lose customers is there anything in the record with regard to that that there's certainly nothing in the record to that your honor but it stands to reason that there would be a at the sink probability that they would lose customers it would about incur any charge that they would have to cover and target i don't believe there's any evidence of statutory right that is granted to importers at supporters and domestic affected parties the participate in then measure review to participate in a challenge to the antidumping duty proceeding that is what since hardware is doing one of the part becomes moot if retroactive part not the prospect of our right node in the north not necessarily on it once once a new administrative review is completed if there is no injunction and the entr since hard work could be put in the untenable position of constantly going to court and having its case mooted because no injunction was granted and you have an endless cycle of since filing cases in the c i t v no injunction granted and then all the that's true in each and every one of these proceedings we don't need to apply for factors to figure it bad at the end game that requires an injunction in this circumstance no your honor because because the court not only must look at the potential for irreparable harm look at just whether there's a substantial probability of success on the merits and here what we are advocating is that in certain cases there is no no possibility of of any success on the merits and for instance  jurisdiction if the complaint only stated a claim that had been repeatedly litigated and denied by this court such as the case i was referring to last week in the c h p there are many instances in which the government will not consent to an injunction but when we do you know no i think it's something certainly greater than a frivolous standard your honor because i don't think a plaintiff that that files a complaint that has allegation that contains allegations that for instance in which the plan failed to exhaust its remedies is necessarily frivolous but we would certainly oppose oppose an injunction in that case and i don't think it's necessarily frivolous for a pla they lose their ability to challenge yes is that how you would articulate the irreparable harm the irreparable harm is that if these entries are liquidated there is the distinct possibility that since hardware will lose any chance manufactures is seeking customers the those customers are assuming there's either going to be a no antidumping duty rate or a lower antidumping duty rate and it's since hardware is unavailable to challenge that rate it may in fact lose these customers in the senior that that there's no question of irreparable harm in this case and everyone's been focusing on the money and it's not the money it's my right my pride it's right traditional review that's what they're refer such as the u s price information and the factors of production information that should not have been thrown out and also the information regarding a separate race statics not i'm thrown out that was the second and then the third one is even if you know the quote does not believe that partial facts available should have been used the last claim we raised was when they applied facts available they applied to since hardware the china wide rate the one hundred  fifty seven percent rate and that rate is where comp is to be a pot applied to companies that are not privately owned and that do not operate free from government control and the administrative record in this in this case shows that the use of back hundred fifty seven percent rate was not correct and an alternate rate should be should be used so there are we are raising substantial legal issues so given that point i raised already three cases of the court of international trade have determined it's lawful for the department of commerce through private china wide rate to a company that has a stablished operates free from government control the had nothing to do with the government control only was limited to market price the purchase of market economy inputs had nothing to do with the confidence status as a separate company