may please the court but we are here today because the district court committed three legal errors in holding that the claimed term at issue is let me ask you housekeeping which is independent claims seven representative of the yes ok thank you the st legal error that the district court committed was ignoring be unambiguous and dispositive intrinsic evidence it is a bedrock principle that one looks to the intrinsic evidence st before turning to anything else to understand whether the claims are definite or not here the district court i fail to consider equations one thousand three hundred and fourteen and fifteen from collen seven of the patent page sixty two of the record but even assuming that the district court's actual applying for correct which we challenge but even assuming that those are correct the district court make us made a nd legal  cannot use extrinsic evidence to inject ambiguity into the claims where none exists the final legal air that the district court committed was applying the wrong legal standard to a determination under one hundred and twelve dollars paragraph to which deals that enable description of charge density distribution only on the surface of a cylindrical conductor but not over the cylindrical conductors cross section and then the correction on the cross section limitation our goes on to the functions are well to approximate a charge density distribution over the cross section of this and cylindrical conductor right correct why isn't the cross section limitation then internally inconsistent so if you look at the diagram that we have provided on page six of our brief you see that in these equations is going to the preferred embodiment  accumulation mode basis functions represented in the purple swears calculate what the charge is on the exteriors that ass on the inside of those but humiliation the basis functions corresponds of the surface radius finding the surface the interior is set to zero elsewhere and there are a person of ordinary skill in the art would know that a conductor that you're trying to model for these chips has no charge on the inside if you don't need to calculate th is the beauty of this patent didn't you take the position that this is not an ideal conductor is that true no your honor we took the position that the claims are not limited to ideal or not ideal in ninety nine  nine percent of cases you're going to want to model an ideal conductor standing here today i can't think of an instance you might want to model a bad one but that's not at issue here what we're saying is that you're saying that even if these formulas were applied construction that made that clear we did we did insist on it because we thought this might make things less clear for the district court but we have limited time limited pages before your honor i did it as he didn't appeal it here we didn't appeal you we don't need to appeal that definition because those accumulation of basis functions even though we argued below they could be used to calculate into your ear you don't have to you don't need that in order to succeed on this issue look at the claims and cells you see there is an internal consistency there the rd code segment talks about linear coolly combining conduction mode basis functions to calculate the current funny interior ok next segment where you looking for charge on the outside of that same process and there is an internal consistency and that's also borne out so i'm supposed to know that the over cross section and rd code segment is interior and over the cross section the forth charge on the exterior but how does it make sense to approximate in a charge density distribution over the cross section of the conductor as as that limitation recites when the charge over the cross section is by definition zero let me give you an example let's say you have a straw and somebody asks you to approximate the amount of plastic in that straw you can cut a cross section of the straw measure the plastic on the outside and you know of a straw by definition has no plastic on the inside of the it's not sterile and then you use that approximation to figure out what it is over the prosecution you just calculate the outside no the to calculate the outside that approximates everything over the cross section to get you have an expert clarifying that we did not your honor why because the intrinsic  i will say also say that the arguments as to indefiniteness changed quite a bit from the beginning it was originally the scope of what the word approximate means and it continued on into by the time we get oral argument it's different but we don't need an expert your honor and that asa lot of money it takes a lot of time it makes all cases more expensive when you can look at the intrinsic evidence st and you can explain it to the trial court and the trial court also has a special master in this area we believe that one of the trial court could see that one of ordinary skill in the art reading the claims in conjunction with the specification would understand what these terms believe will i did i did recognized that the plaintiff at the time had mentioned equation thirteen a recognition of a fact is not analysis of the fact and it did not grapple with the information in equations one thousand three hundred and fourteen and fifteen in the same understand it just ignore it so our review of this issue is you know very yes john and our review of this issue it's we review district court opinion as you know as their judgments we're not supposed to go through pick through and find all the faulty reasoning just look and see as a matter of so why does it matter even if what you're saying is correct why does that matter because i don't know your rebuttal time just so you know i think you're right because i don't want you all making the same mistake the intrinsic evidence is the end of the inquiry if you want to look at the extrinsic evidence it fully support the intrinsic and you can't use the extra tickets and create ambiguity where none exist we don't make mistakes we correct i hope the in the district court and it lines five dollars to six dollars of appendix nine hundred and ninety eight the system told the district court quote the claims refer to a charge density distribution over the cross section of cylindrical conductor this council's against mentors construction mentors construction was that the accumulation functions are limited to the surface of the conductor and east system was absolutely correct the over the cross section language in the claim is inconsistent with construing accumulation function as being limited to the surface but that is the district courts claim construction the district court adopted our construction that construction is not appealed and therefore when they said councils against they were conceding that if we won the claim construction the claim was internally inconsistent the result of that is that under the non appeal claim construction this claim is akin to extracting orange juice from an apple which was the analogy of this court in trustees of columbia now in the district court the  will pause to correct one misstatement by counsel the two misstatements one the specification does not refer to the cross section does not define the cross section of the conductor as being the surface there's nothing in the specification that says the cross section is anything but the cross section nd our indefiniteness argument did not change dr nagel's deposition testimony which is in the record explained long before the marking hearing exactly what we are are arguing here today in what we argued on appeal do you agree though even if the specification doesn't say that the surface is the cross section do you agree though i mean it's not unreasonable for a poser to think that one way to  estimate or model a cross section is to measure the surface one way to measure the surface is to estimate the cross section i mean given the explanation here that's not necessarily beyond what a poser might well your honor st it was there was no disagreement in the district court that the cross section is not the interior of the conductor in fact the system's own briefing refers to the cross section is being in the interior of the conductor there was no doubt about that and we disagree that it makes sense in the context of an non ideal conductor it was undisputed that the conductor here could be ideal or non ideal that was actually part of the uncertainty for a skilled artis they needed to defend this claim in the context of non ideal conductor how do you respond to the point that it's even for non ideal conductors the sparring they allow is sufficient well it's actually five reasons their st they didn't make that argument in the body of the blue brief in the blue brief while they argued was that it made sense in the context of ideal conductors with no charge inside they did not argue that the equations or accumulation mode functions more broadly could approximate any and all charge density distributions inside of the conductor so your friend on the other side seem to imply that in the real world i took this  one would expect that it would be fair to model it as an ideal conductor but here everyone agreed that the claims are not so limited and that's one of the reasons it makes understand the slow so you have to help me let me see if i can understand what this case boils down to the argument is that when seems to be when someone fully explain what that claim language may us technically it can be understood section but the argument in the case is that a person of ordinary d still in the absence of a full explanation would be confused and skilled artists and looking at this could not make sense of it and for multiple reasons and that's not make sense of it even if it's explainable absolutely could not make sense of it because there is no explanation that would make sense of it d explain for instance the accumulation surface functions which the district court construed as not describing charge density inside of the conductor that it cannot have any meaning inside the conductor one reason why it's inconsistent is the surface functions are per unit area where as the charge density inside a volume inside a conductor is per unit volume and therefore it's the wrong units  district court they had an analogy to a chocolate bar and they said oh it makes perfect sense to model or to approximate any and all distribution it with or like a reese's cup as a matter of fact the amount of chocolate or the density distribution of chocolate on the surface that tells you nothing nothing about the charge density of the char the chocolate distribution per unit volume inside to approximate the charge density distribution on the surface and we're going to assume that it's zero inside that would be a very different claim and this argument would not apply however they didn't say that instead they had an error in the claim that plainly an error in the claim and they tried to paper it over in the district court with two constructions they they argue that the accumulation functions are not limited to the surface if they had won that that would have undermined o internal inconsistency but they lost it and did not appeal the nd construction they tried was the charge density distribution they tried to say oh charge density distribution that doesn't have to be at every point over a region it's good enough if you just do the perimeter they lost that the district court appendix seventeen the district court construe charge density distribution as being the the distribution at each point in the region so it has to be over each point in this cross section and therefore and then we had dr nagle testifying if i may invite the chords attention to the appendix again and if i go through some of dr nagel's testimony which is which is critical here  conflicts with all the rest of the specification and it suggests that somehow it's able to deal with non ideal conductors where you have a charge density across the entire cross section of the conductor which i do not believe the n techniques in this patent can do that and rebut it no inventor no expert on the other side showed up appendix seven hundred and eleven at appendix seven hundred and eleven at line eight you something up quote it makes no sense at seven artist who wants to design around the invention and it wants to figure out ok can i use something in this space for non ideal conductors this is covered in an ideal conductors there are strong clues in the nd half th claim element that this actually applies to non ideal conductors or to poor conductors the nd half of the element implies there is charge inside so that says oh this is not ideal conductors i better be worth the claim itself doesn't say it's an ideal conductor even though the preferred embodying that was so that tells the skilled artists and worried it's it might cover an ideal but then the st question is the interesting question is whether covers ideal or not and deal conductors that's the only infringement question well no but that's the primary if i want to if i'm in the laboratory and i want to experiment in this space and i have some non ideal conductor i think it's not fair to model my conductor  all the charges on the surface so it's it's got some charge inside i don't know if this patent speaks to that or not better at the analogy so that that's the demonstrative of why there's conflicting clues and it's ambiguous as a matter of law school columbia same thing although it was stipulated indefinite as they explained if there's an internal inconsistency that's a question of indefiniteness and extracting orange juice from an apple clearly enablement problem problem these days the perhaps is but it's also a different problem and you don't know how to correct it was it was the orange truong or was the apple wrong was the st half of this claim element wrong or and there was the there we did not brief enablement if we didn't raise enablement the only one who raised operability was east system not us it's the internal inconsistency and again as a matter of logic we submit as a matter of that skilled artisan in the lab and as a matter of precedent multilayer components trustees and also his term the intrinsic evidence the district court started with the in and the district court looked at the section that has the equations look at the definition of accumulation functions they are both in front of the equations and behind saying accumulation functions are surface functions unlike some other functions that did the conduction function spoke to the inside the district court noted that then turned to the prosecution history where they said clearly that the accumulation functions are on the surface and then turned to the dependent claims more intrinsic evidence where they referred to charge on not and only then did the district court later in the analysis see the dr nagel's unrebutted testimony which the court made findings on and those findings were not appealed no reference to clear error review in the district court therefore we submit that these claims are invalid under normal us which issued after these patents issued and will submit on the briefs on the reason you haven't rebut anything that the experts yes your honor remembering attorney argument is correct your honor but intrinsic evidence is not attorney argument either only at the surface and then saying that you can use so i combination of cylindrical accumulation of basis functions to approximate charge over a cross section i believe i heard counsel say that the specification doesn't say that the surface is included in the cross action anyone would understand that the cross section of anything includes both the inside and the outside this is it related to matheson conductors if you take a cross section of a and easter bunny or a reese's peanut butter cup or a straw all of those kids tame the inside and the outside and you don't have to be explicit about it we did not use an expert you're right your honor but you can begin the encouraging with the intrinsic evidence and i don't believe i heard my posing council once reference how that zero elsewhere in equations one thousand three hundred and fourteen and fifteen does anything other than elucidate the question of where your honors today if you're wondering how you approximate the charge over a cross section the specification shows seven it if there was any question when looking at the claims there is any possible question of somebody of ordinary skill in the art about how do i do this will they just go back to column seven they see these three equations and they say oh of course i would say the interior dizzy or oh i don't have to do these many many calculations that used to take days to complete and now by using this patent it takes you a lunch break to run this modeling because you only have to calculate what's on the outside set the inside to zero there are a couple of other points that i believe i heard opposing counsel say i'll just as to the findings of fact that the district court made there is really only one on page thirty five of the red brief they say that there are two but it's so won accumulation of basis functions described charge density only on the surface we agree let's let's take that we're not appealing that and then the nd one is dr nagel's opinions were not rebutted that's just like saying  the st one is not wrong it's two halves of the same coin so we're saying we can live with this finding of fact there were no findings of fact about units of measurement and in fact we've explained why there's no inconsistency within that measurement there's no inconsistency about each point in a region or any finding of fact about it because again if you're setting the inside to zero and you're calculating the outside then you're approximating for each point in the region it's approximating not calculating and that's the difference here is if you're trying to figure out how much of something is in an object that you know that something only exists on the outside only need to figure out what's on the outside in a recent speech about a cup no the chocolates on