growing here the first case this warning we have off doesn't motion to entertain but show thank you judge well yes it is it is a pleasant motion when i practiced in the court i made numerous motions i think they were all for extensions of time and this is a much more as the presiding judge said pleasant motion i would like to move the admission to the bar of the federal circuit to my clerks and if they could rise i move the admissions of brian patrick boyd was a member of the board in good standing with the highest court of georgia and reeve tyler bull was a member of the bar in good standing of the highest court of new york i have knowledge of their credentials and i'm satisfied that they possess the necessary qualifications for admission to the bar of the court those of the metric kind of official words that we have to say that too to make the motion but i will just add as a small loss that the bride and reeves of it with me since last fall they've both done an excellent job and they've become good friends and i'm sure that they'll be excellent members of the bar the court if my motion is quit  i would like and behalf of all my colleagues to invite to welcome you to the bar of the court we look forward to seeing you back here from time to time  first case this morning is zero seven one five seven two linear technology the advanced analog mr davis the place the court and like to address the ship ese and the cuss a reference is and then turn to the interpretation of the term voltage regulator unless the court has any questions or rely on the briefs for the other issues on appeal turning first to the ship a c reference and this is true with regard to the only issue isn't to suppose should the issue of obviousness was not ruled on by the commission and it's not on appeal here and neither should paisley nor casa teach the limitation of controlling the current flowing through the capacitor during both the charge and the destroyed phase when switches one and two are closed the p c patent only teaches the well known prior technique of controlling current  are both reside on the same wind so they've proven operate during the same phase so having switch one in switch for modulator would not give you control of the current during both the charge and the discharge face and then the other alternative it gives is instead of doing one who or you could just do one or you could just do three so it never teaches having a module a did switch on what about homes problem seven again it talks about any of the switches so yet it's you could just the the idea that instead of four you could do one or you could do two or you there some reasonable basis for his conclusion no your are not given the standard of clear and convincing evidence you have to have the the the requisite evidence you need to meet on both the charge and the discharge phase you would you would have to add logic circuitry and we cited that in our brief your honor so even the inventor and the other side's expert conceded that you would have to modify what's there there was also a heavy reliance on an appeal with regard to the teaching of the additional caught faces but remember your honor the claims pure call for alternating back and forth between a charge and discharge phase and if you look at column five one twenty five it note said additional clock phases are added to produce multiple multiplications of the input voltage in other words what you do is you have a charge and you get to a certain level you fall at by the charge so you can get to one point five you follow that by another charge so you get the two and so having one of them to charge to having more than example if you look at so you've got player which depends on on one right and then you've got you get controlling the first and second switches to alternately charge the person a passer and discharge the first capacitor to the output node and then in column one and claim nine you have that that same language controlling the first and so it second switches to alternately charge and discharge and then you have controlling the current  flowing through the first capacitor in response to the control signal when the first which is closed in other words charge and then you have when the second switch is closed and other words discharge so you are seeing those are the two limitations that you say the multiple charges so at least at the very least the limitation that's not met is controlling current during both the charge phase i switch one is closed and the discharge phase when switch two is close now if you add multiple substantial evidence pass through the rubric of the standard that was before the commission the clear and convincing evidence so they need to have substantial evidence that they've met the clear and convincing evidence so it's just some evidence that after providing deference you need to rest assured that they they had before them the clear and convincing evidence of anticipation and you're what we have is just the scale you're up a disclosure and you haven't supported  expert testimony trying to bridge that gap but even there the expert conceded and a number of critical areas where it simply wasn't there now for cost say what the main thing that  apple intervener relied on is the dotted line in figure one of cost say and that's purportedly the feedback connection but classic describes the purpose of the feedback connection as controlling current charging phase but also the discharging phase he did that based on he justified that leap of face on the basis that the current source was in series with the capacitor during the discharge phase but as  conceded at the hearing that only meant that it could control the current during the discharge phase and that said j eight hundred eighty seven could control is not the standard with regard  to clear and convincing evidence particularly we do not have the disclosure if he's saying it's inherently present and has to be necessarily there that has to necessarily occur and remember your honor this is a case where  respondent has time and again said you can't find infringement just looking at the typology of the circuit you need to see how it operates casa explicitly talks about that feedback loop as as  requiring as as being for the purpose of the charge phase now the commission and their findings they transform that could into necessarily and that's a j one fifty six but there is no evidence that brain yes and out i'd like to address first the actual meaning of the term voltage regulator because i think it will help with the preamble there at least two problems one is that they're limiting it to a single target level throughout the entire operating range that vice and secondly there's the commission applied a standard where you know though it was not explicitly in the construction they required that the user specify that level this narrow interpretation was not based on any disclaimer it during the prosecution history or any language in specification remember the term voltage regulator does not appear in the speci rather it's purportedly how one of the ordinary school in the art would understand it but if you look at the art of electronics which was cited by dr shapiro you see in his own patents to describe what that regulators the art of electronics shows that that's a drag elaters include regulators with multiple target levels and that can be have their output voltage adjusted so what happened is the commission adopted a very limited interpretation that excludes the more sophisticated types of voltage regulators the purported justification for doing that was a purported definition by dr drop complainants expert in reality there was no definition and by either of the experts during the any of the expert reports because this was an issue that was raised after that by a specifications is it's written in a way that it it it contemplates a possible variation in the output voltage you know for example the the woods nothing specific there's nothing specific but it got column eight for example it talks of a maximum value for vs out you don't talk in terms of a maximum value if there is only one value and there's other areas that talk about you know the possibility of a variations in the voltage out and it talks about the voltage out generally being greater or less then there are greater equal to two times limited to a single value and he certainly and stating that a voltage regulators ability to regulate depends on the input voltage and that in the current load being within  the normal specifications of the circuit designed to do work and is by no means saying that you need to maintain a single value throughout the entire specified range of a product construction is inconsistent with the specification i think it's important to start with the specifications description of old age regulation and really i think the most detailed one occurrence at town at the end of column five going in column six of the specification and this is actually cited in fin all the parties to brief so that kind of long discussion of voltage regulation and there's a similar summary on column nine in liniers brief that that passage or those passages allow for changes in the regulated fold and if you read those passages as a whole and in particular parts that were not  highlighted in layers brief it's clear that when they talk about the changes to the output voltage yes indeed they are talking about it change but it's an instantaneous change that's detected by the feedback that then the circuit works to correct in order to and this is how each of the paragraphs end was when discussing this to maintain the voltage at the regulated value so to the extent there's an argument that the the patent doesn't contemplate that being therefore it's not necessarily constant but i think in and there's a number of citations in their brief about maintaining the regulator value as to that particular citation that it occurs right before the discussion that all the parties agreed on and there's no doubt that in in these type of devices it doesn't raise the voltage by a certain amount but i think that reading of the patent as a whole and indeed it starts really on the in the first couple paragraphs they do talk about maintaining the regulated voltage so to the extent that is inconsistent with that i think it's important to read where they pain disclosed switch so this you know up to the extent there's not a great deal of discussion it's because there wasn't a great deal of argument presented about whether it's your pace you did indeed disclose this but getting to that clear and convincing evidence when two and again you know then he even says the civically for the sake of clarity are only discuss control on one phase and then he doesn't deed in discussing that embodiment only discuss control and one to interpret that real human convincing well absolutely around it it you know the standard isn't that there be a lot of discussion just that it be clear and i think in looking at this crazy reference all the parties would agree to it if you if you modulator switch switch to were switched three in addition a switch for that would be on the opposite phase then you would have this and i think the critical question is whether they clearly disclose that assume one of ordinary skill in the art now there was there was actually protests may supporting the fact that it did not even think standing here and reading when he discusses how you could modify this he clearly explains that you could modify it to have control in bot and this is particularly so if you look at figure one you'll see the s d four there that would be an additional switched driver and you see it even comes off of u discharge phase even says s d four and it has it coming off of there so in you know in looking at this it's clearly contemplating i think the critical issue is whether it's disclosed to one of ordinary here is whether it's disclosed by the reference and with respect to both to me as we feel it was when we feel we've met the clear and convincing evidence standard i see i'm running out of time so i think i may three three seven the first is under any claim construction there are multiple actual findings of non infringement and the second is there was a factual finding that there was no domestic industry and the third is there is a factual finding against part of a substantial evidence i'll get that would only take the preamble out there would still be anticipation because anticipation did not rely on the preamble question by both directions if the preamble is in and then it's a question of what is what's regulator mean under both parties construction there is not infringement and that's because even in their brief that they've had thirty seven they said voltage regulator required to predetermine regulated output voltage they were factual findings by they a pre determined output and no regulation that it's even under their construction the term voltage regulator there are factual findings supported by substantial evidence and of course remain wouldn't be appropriate because anticipation would require finding no violation of section three three seven that formula and the description in the patent has as one of the variables minus score i just load current times are thirty eight which is the adjustable resistance pan then explains that when the load current changes and more current can vary depending on how much power rippling through the resistance our thirty eight will change to actually counterbalance it so there inversely proportional i go i was down r thirty it was up and vice versa so the v actually stayed the same and i'm just going to mention a few of the references that are in our brief of the patent that says if the device is designed to quote maintain the output at the regulated output voltage that's in the abstract i argument of this art of electronics that they cited to that are of the times is inconsistent with the art specification i just discussed it also was never raised below the art of electronics the book was introduced for a different proposition but his race for the first time in their reply brief the art of electronics actually discusses changing the actual circuit you rip out some resistors off the circuit board and put in new resistors to get a new regulator voltage but once that circuit is operating that radio voltage three which is the switch driver for the east the module it's which s w for and its describes how that can control current and then at column for line forty three on it says further additional fifty eight to one fifty nonny there is expert testimony on this exact point j thirteen seventy three to seventy eight there was argument in the pre trial briefs and posts are restate one nine eighty one and there is actually an inability claim chart introduced of figure one at that control current sources in the circuit loop during both charge and discharge there is another whole body humans in the pan that's the inverter that dach that mr davis talked about during that during that just a few points if we could turn the j eighteen eighty seven with regard to that the testimony of dr hayes and the the question well the answer starts at line twelve and it says so anybody with ordinary skill in the art would understand that because the current source is in series with the capacitor during discharge phase it can control the current during the discharge phase can your honor question but doesn't actually show this when you call the feedback loop controlling the current during the discharge phase right answer this feedback loop doesn't show at what phase you control it it signifies control your honor dr space is testimony it's clear that cost not you know you don't affirm on what could have happened your firm on what the commission actually decide it so if this court finds that the instruct the claim construction for voltage regulator is in error then it should remain back for further proceedings if this court finds that the commission correctly construed holds its regulators we lose now let's talk with let's segue let's go back to voltage regulator very quickly  about a regulated voltage sometimes it talks about the regulated voltage sometimes it talks about a sometimes it talks about bearing your honor in describing how the circuitry works to maintain a particular target voltage the by three one patten is by no means excluding the possibility that it also operate to maintain voltages at a regulated level for other  your honor two things it claims are not limited to the preferred body that what the path is doing in the sections that they're discussing is they're talking about how to regulate the voltage for that particular target but that's not the same thing as saying there's only one target you will look in vain for any statement in the specification of the five through one that it's limited to a particular output voltage target remember the purpose of them not to do anything in vain ok sorry time remember the purpose of the invention here the purpose was and it's a charge profit that was able to reduce noise on the input line by controlling maintaining a substantially constant current during both the charge face and the discharge base that's what this invention is about that's the point of novelty here again remember you're on a voltage regulator does not even appear in the spec that's a term that is the sole place it appears is in the preamble  talking about a specific target voltage it's talking about maintaining that's how you maintain the regulated voltage and that's not that's not a disclaimer that was never found be a disclaimer by the commission the commission was saying this is how one of ordinary skill new york would understand it the art of electronics shows archer thank you very much