but the problem i'm having here is that this is a complicated case in terms of the pack not your isp enough to read the wiring dark grey so we were a trial and you know what we have to do is to see what the expert witnesses said about the diagrams and to see if there was substantial evidence in the expert witness testimony to support the decision that the administrative law judge made  both sides here seem to want to serve function of the trial court and review the wiring diagram which that's not our job you know what's your response to that you are i don't think you have to do that now we try to explain  the experts said that it doesn't monitor all if you look at the testimony well you'll see it but the question there are in terms of the claim construction the question there is whether it's it why isn't that show that all of agilent eleven presented by the examiner were simply electrical devices electrical structures that received a current and then modified did he say that the surrender was to old age monitor in the end put sir and his client instructions where exactly did he say those words and i didn't see them he just simply said well you can't evidence to support the first part that claims so it's the second part of the claim construction that you're relying on that's exactly right and in basically if we conclude that there is that the there is no clear and unmistakable surrender in the prosecution history for a device that also regulates voltage then you lose too right i would have to say yes but i don't believe that the kind of destruction that at issue in this appeal we've accepted the client instruction as it is we don't have to accept the claim construct your interpretation of the claim is true we don't even have to accept a claim construction if it's clear we can come up with our own claim construction we're not challenging  construction meet and it's not one hundred percent clear what it i think that what you can take away from that and i don't think there's any dispute reading what judge longhorn said in his initial decision the current input circuit does not include circuits and monitor old age i'm i think that's fair that mistake the whole on his opinion and fly back to court to do a lot we pointed out the evidence and say where is the evidence that outputs of it is not possible what was there any expert testimony a person of the questions such clevenger was asking about that is to look at these three prior art references and to see whether they  voting monitoring at the vent yes that's a question and introduce evidence that there was so what if there was if the if the claim doesn't depend on you now th correct me if i'm wrong my understanding of the records sir is that each of his products was found to infringe both of the patents in the suit that's right and so that would lead me to think that you must prevail on both patents in order to escape from the explosion  it currently is but there are other issues that if for example we don't find one of the patent there could be design around that might be available in the future if the explosion although i'm trying to say is assume for purposes of argument we agreed with you on one of but the question that who were asking about is why is that claim construction if in fact that's what the l j meant what's the basis for that what's the basis in the prosecution history for the notion that  it can't monitor voltage as well as current testified that these wiring diagrams meant your position i would suppose must be that there is at worst for you there's conflicting expert testimony as to whether  worst there's what think testimony as to as to whether the input circuit here monitors all to rights and that we have a finding of fact by the administrative law judge  kirk was with excludes exclude circuit and monitor current and potentially something else was not excluded as most of the input monitored occurrence and did not was that their service monitored most exclusive and not current and therefore they didn't print so the edition that was framed in front of judge locker and was just a circuit that monitors only voltage can that be a current  input circuit because that is the way friends dispute this issue about now that it may be monitors current and voltage is something that was raised for the first time i feel so if you read which are lovers discussion of this issue the dispute in front  input circuit which both monitors current and voltage is that within the claim limitation or not i believe it is i believe as long as the circuit is receiving current and responds that current  hundred pointed out to the specific what was specifically in front of the cabinet office and it was specifically excluded were circuits that were soley voltage based service there was no suggestion that those circuits respond turning anywhere and i'd like to just response to the second half is that we don't have a specific finding by the administrative law judge that the  functional response exists i can put it that way what's the answer to that problem i mean if there is there's plenty of evidence in the record i would agree that there is enough evidence to support a finding the claim point right well no i disagree i think that his findings of how many he made a factual point about how the different functions work and those factors findings do say those functions are in response to the current at t expressly it meets the current circuit as i have construed that quote unquote i believe that the fact that he didn't say as i have construed it in the sentence elevates form over substance  think that's not the problem that's not the problem the problem is that the limitation is not is a complicated limitation the question is has he made the necessary factual finding you point out that he's made to find the climate patient satisfied maybe that sufficiently but it's not but it's not a question of having as i've construed the coin that's certainly inherent in what he said the question is was he required to make a more detailed plan that addresses the response of this point directly i believe that we argue this matter of law about in response to the closest you can find is on page one too long where the judge says after you describe the three functions which we all now know are really two functions he says pan is involved in the under voltage law that's really the best you could say because the undervote is lockout does not operate in response to the value of the signal at most you could circuit that's a very different thing and i suggest that the reason he didn't say it in response to that is because he couldn't there is no evidence if i could just go back to the three ninety eight patent reform there's been some of that sure but that happens all the time and trial and that's what the question of substantial evidence you know if there's ever been the other way he made a finding that the other you're not proving schematics not accurate is not the same as proving that it