cases before the court this morning the first is bubble versus i t c case number one four one seven zero one mr huhne do with that high pass yes you want to  mating opening the specification uses the terminating opening ten times and for example one of those times is with respect to figure one which identifies the meaning opening of element one twenty and that's on column fo winds forty nine in each of the ten times the meeting opening is used the pad does not divorce meeting from opening but in considering meeting openings the commission divorce the two words finding that meeting was not  dispute and that opening did not require construction be evidence in the record in this investigation so that the word mating could not be divorced from opening so like as i said the specifications consider the use the term mating opening the extrinsic evidence also showed at the hearing and in the record that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading intrinsic evidence would not divorce the two terms either but i'm not sure i understand why that matters it whether it's amazing opening or an opening the commission simply said that by definition you have to have an opening for something so that into  your honor the there's two things there in terms of what the opening means right so the reason why we're arguing that the terms can't be divorced from each other is because what even if they can't be divorced from each other opening it's pretty common term i mean it let's use have something the specification that says opening doesn't actually mean an opening but the close surface how would we ever get to your definition i mean it mating obviously modifies opening but it it still has to be an opening up some sort of that yes your honor and so what our position is in terms of if you look at figure one figure one is correct around terms of the method of manufacturing the problem but the claim is not a method of manufacturing it's the product it's the fluorescent reflector lamp which is what figure one is right i mean i don't read that that commission to have said that that the opening has to exist after the product all put together so if if i mean our position your honor is if that's true i mean we took their brief to mean that the meeting opening doesn't have to be a hole which was our position one even if we were going to agree with you and i'm not quite sure i'm following your argument exactly but but you've got about five grounds upon which the i p c c relied find not in french you know this isn't just one issue here you've got a the level of ordinary skill good not bad of a lay person their way it's a mechanical engineer with an education mechanical design and manufacturing so both sides had extra witnesses we've had we had one dr mer the respondent had t and so based on this court's precedent precedent in centric i as well as fanchon if the skill level of the technology is beyond a lay person and one type has expert testimony of infringement which we did which the a was persuaded by in finding infringement then to rebut that evidence there's got to be expert testimony on the other side but what we have here in the record we have dr robert saying that the  the shape reflectors have no opening it's not correct that was under the respondents claim construction your honor which required the meeting opening to be a whole it was not under the construction adopted by the l g a and i would also say that when the commission discussed we agree so we let's say we agree with the commission's instruction that term mating o just talking about opening which is not limited to a whole well then there's an area in each of the choose products where there is a portion of the light source base that has a light source that is inserted in it so according to claim one defines mating ok so looking at claim one how do you know there's maybe opening to find by and so when the commission came up with its construction for the first time the final determination thing that made ng is not in dispute and that opening the nephew limited to a whole well the evidence collapse everything into one piece in other words your claim actually had a variety of things it doesn't just have the opening but has a first circumferential flange and a second flange and yet you want to say they all are the same thing covers all of those limitations your honor we would respectfully disagree with that in terms of the first and second circumferential flange the evidence at the hearing determine that to a person of ordinary skill flange to be a circular projection and yet when you say the evidence you're saying we're supposed to ignore the pattern itself and say that your expert is the only thing we can look at no your honor that's consistent with the intrinsic records as well case then why do you need to have a point that it's making opening at all well your honor it's it's not that it's in our construction there's two parts of it the claim defines the mating opening using the first circumferential flange and there's a second part to it which is ok will what's happening inside there what's happening inside that meeting opening well it's where the light source base attaches lights or so it's not bothers me is that you know if you look at all the figures and you look at the written description i can see where the commission thought they were getting this definition the problem is if you look at the claims the claim simply says that it talks about a reflector with a defined cavity said cavity having a first circle fragile flange defined and made an opening having an inner diameter so why couldn't accused device be said to have that opening well opening need to be given meaning and based on the plain ordinary meaning of opening the opening has to be an actual open nothing neptune what they're saying is not identified and actually to disguise there's a flange around some sort of area that doesn't mean there's also a note they also have to show that there is the claim language itself as well in light of the specification showing some water openings where it extends all the way through to have the claim making opening it would have to extend through the entire process and from it that may so what you're saying is that that air has to be who separate flanges yes or one has to be inside the other so the first second french appliance not see inside the cabin yes the first one must be inside a cat client looking at dr roberts testimony in the record and he seems to say that they accuse products that continuous bowl shaped reflect without opening my correct on their yes so in summary that seems patent quire specific structural features that the keys products simply do not have neptune's only response to argue that it doesn't support expert testimony should be elevated to a level of importance found fact pleased to court decisions of this court have advice practitioners for years that claims are not construed in the abstract they are construed as part of the specification in the written description that goes with it and if you do that in this case like the commission did you come to the conclusion that a hole has to be a passage or an opening that something passes through because when you look at what the inventor described as his invention it was a very specific invention it was a reflector that has an opening on the top and an opening on the bottom it has a circumstantial flange that defined that opening on the bottom it has a light source base that light source says the light emitting opening is at the wider part of the reflector in the circumference of the it means the circumstantial rim is that the wider portion of the reflector and the circumstantial flange that the should it doesn't go all the way to the bottom i admit it doesn't say exactly carbon exactly but but when you read the claims and you read the specification and you see what is described in the figures and what's described in the written  defines the mating opening what what else the claims tell you is that at that light source base has its own circumferential flange which is larger than the circumstantial flange defining the inner diameter  traps the light source base so it can't go all the way through to the light source base then attaches to the ballast housing and you have your complete device all connected together that's what the inventor invented and you read the claims in light of that you don't carry the limitations on that suggestion you carry the limitations but i'm suggesting you have to look at the context when you're looking at the client's given that i think the commission's claim construction it's actually not a policy service it has a couple openings that it in which the chips come through so in other words the electrical connection occurs and that that area so i still don't understand why the claim as a perception on the diagram what require a full opening on both sides now you might have an argument that because it has to be defined by the circumstantial flange that that whole piece has to have the ability to open to electrical connections but that's not the type of structure of the of the word opening seems to have gone too far i'm not saying there might not be other non infringement grounds but i'm having a hard time understanding they they really just looked at the diagram and said that's what we're focusing on i don't think so because if you look at the claim language is written french will flange defining a meeting open having an inner diameter in order to have an inner diameter of  body it has to be an open there's otherwise there's no in a dynamic that part of the part of that claim language telling you that there's an intraday amator tells you it's an opening you can't have an open space that has an image in or diameter infringement position but the commission did cite to in rely upon the testimony of dr roberts dr roberts was admitted as an expert in the lighting industry the design of c f l lamps as an electrical engineer and that the mechanical design of c f l lamps he was emitted over the objection of counsel by the a l j who thought that his experience was sufficient to give  appropriate testimony and he did testify that there was no infringement he described how there was no meeting opening how there was no second circumstantial flange how there was no light source base all their testimony was part of the record so there was full support for the commission's position what do we do about the fact that the al j a made different actual findings and different credibility determinations as it relates to expert testimony and at the commission not sure you review a my understanding but the law as i understand it is that you are reviewing the commission's opinion not the ail j s opinion in that the ale chase opinions is part of the record but i'm not sure what factual findings that you're you are opinion the question before this court is there substantial support for the commission's decision and my and the commission can make its own factual findings it's it's it is the ultimate determinator of determiner of the the facts from the i t c argued which they're trying it seems to construe opening to be a whole but the record even the briefs show that the positions are relatively consistent that opening is not limited to one claim one excusing it like figure one is an apparatus claim to a fluorescent reflector lamp it's not a method of manufacturing which is why you'll see that on both sides many openings is not limited to a in terms of his making structure position in terms of not infringement doc roberts testified that under the constructions adopted by vale j only one of which was reversed by the commission that he had no not at princeton and so there was one that that that permission adopted then you've got a problem project that you have to meet every limitation correct that's correct your honor so so what i'm saying is the only construction that was altered by the commission was meeting open