parties i split my time eight minutes past seven minutes now i'd like to begin by discussing a very important issue that i think is critical to an understanding of this case so i briefed it fully but i would like references and that the board erd in rejecting the examiners obviousness rejection because he had said that the prior art didn't show a ring but only showed the slee director's definition of a ring so you may have helped the court and given the apparent difficulty in understanding the subject matter i was wondering if i could perhaps just take two minutes of time to discuss the basic structures that are common to all of these hubs you are not going all in the whole on this just five just two minutes of just five basic structures which i think explains how these things all work here we go first you have the hub shaft which is also known as the hub axis then you have a circular sun here that surrounds the hub axle and rotates around the hub axis teeth are formed on the inner peripheral surface of the sun that's two three is a set of paul's mounted to the hub shaft one on the top one on the bottom here's paul has one on the top one on the bottom now the free and the p quantum reference does the best job of showing what these things look like in real life which is figure five of hong which was in our brief this is the porch and it's mounted to the hub shaft here is the sag portion of the pa the sun here is free to rotate now when the sun here is free to rotate the pollers in this position you notice that the paul does not contact the rotating sunday here and that eliminates the problem of friction noise  which you see referenced in the various briefs now fourth component is a spring constant leverage is the paul two is upward walking position finally we have the paul controlling ring which is controlling the ring it causes the pulp to go to its upper in down position now getting back to not going to say i'd like to show that you can see the hub shaft you can see the pauls and then you see the pole controlling reigns now the same portions of the pauls they are covered never just said they're covered by the top controlling ring so you don't see in this picture all you see is the scar proportions of the paw now grooves are formed on the inner peripheral lines up with the sag portion of the pol pot pops up so that it can lock the fun getting the suns the hub shaft otherwise the pot controlling pushes the paul down allowing the ball controlling prior correct but we also have to look at the problems of clean construction which is an issue of law yes but i'm assuming a soon with me for a moment that the board is correct in its claim construction which respects the issues that because basically that's the subject that is on the record that we were sued based on a pulp control structure that is too ratings connected together by a single can then i think that those are two rings that neither one of it is true that that has to be at least two sets of paul who's in who's one hears then does it and if we can't go into the composite for controlling argument then i did it's true that i don't really that the board specifically looked at the whole paul controlling brain limitation they believe it's a poll control hearing that controlled the position of at least two sets of calls and what the board looked at was the g ls sleeves which have a ring like structure neither one of which controls two sets of all i understand that and i'm for the moment let's assume that you're correct about the coin construction ok i don't see that the claim construction is the basis for the rejection of the obviousness rejection i don't see that in the words of union all i see is the obviousness rejection is wrong because the prior art doesn't show repeats but only swee i would say that the the end of order really relying on and i know i guess we're not communicating but that it's it's that whole aspect of what does the ring doing what is the focus limitation of the range that is not  yes in it but again i guess i would say that while the board is is remaining true to the language that they're gonna use it to describe them is a to hide it ha and refer to them a sleaze on a stick that they the substance of their that in terms of going through the elements of the claim of claim one for the reign of clay one is tossed by the gunnels sleeve eighty or eighty irish e j or your  to seventy two what they were looking at i believe in in the obviousness rejection were some of the other elements and whether other prior art was necessary to bring in those other other elements i don't believe that they were at that point make it analysis or even making the assertion that there is something other than a ring that in the prior art but something that's makes the ring obvious i think at that point you're still saying that there's one to one correspondence between that the what is really a sleeve is not a ring and that's probably true with respect to matt suo and mark but it's not true with respect in the gonna which is one of the references which mr deland is trying to clarify but i know what the the board is initially talking about is that first embodiment which has a the control sleeve of the two eighty that extends throughout the entire transmission of the bicycle then they go on to say we rings and and even though it may call it the i ninety j sleeps their rings to the extent that they are rings not only true with respect to the second in mind i'm a gonna figure twenty and that figure twenty does not show the teacher in controls at least two sets of pots in question is it that that's your position etc that's right and you do you read the board as having said exactly that in so many words i do  that they have more than a connecting bar because it's the diagram you can't really tell i think they go into and out of the page around or and the written description says sleeves and and the eyes pattern says sleeves  things that act very differently then rings and the eyes figure six has a ring where all that falls emanate from the same vertical plane it's very different than what we see in the prior art the sleeves with pa to reconsider their reversal of the obviousness rejection in the light of the correction of that there are no your honor because even if there are two rings in the gun of figure twenty with  paul's attached it is nothing like and the eyes patented claims that pan issued with the claims that are directed to a single plane rings with the polls that's not in the gun of the polls emanating out does show rings as opposed to sleaze don't we have to send that back i i think not your honor and here's why because it's not a paul controlling ring with the two conclusion what leads you to second clues other than the use of the word sleep which is just close thank you your honor respectfully inviting the court's attention to page fifty of the appendix that in slightly different question i'm really asking a question about the gun and specifically what i'm interested in learning is whether a d j and eighty  can figure twenty of them have gone are connected in a way that one would characterize those two as part of a and overall sleeves are as simply t whether someone looking at new gun know with everything we have available to us in this record good conclude that a d j and a d i r reams of would conclude that they are part of read then that brings us back to judge dykes question as to why it isn't fair to say no guy i know does show rings now i understand that you are making to this argument something like that one of which was that well that really wasn't the way the case was argued to the full correct your offer to be examined or are to us the second argument you make is that while in any event these rings even if they are rings do not each are either one of them  board predicated its ruling in part on that conclusion and we conclude that that's wrong then you have a problem right your honor i respectfully disagree because on page eight thirty the board was rejection in light of the positions taken by the parties and by sheer mana specifically a ring is a sleeve and that needs this claim limitation and that's what the know your honor because but see on page eight twenty five it is referring to rejections one to three twelve thirteen and sixteen are for example two and ok so now i'm sorry your honor i have to jump to a thirty six where the board is summarizing in this long prosecution that one two two and three which i just read is the heading board said it's not upholding based on its reasoning on eight thirty that we cannot hold any rejections and also the board got to thirteen and sixteen  this heading says one through three so we have two and three for sure as our business based on what should mano has been presenting throughout this whole prosecution for example starting with its request for reexamined it was about sleaze or they don't meet the rest of the flame about at least two paul says which no one has presented or that i could find the book to mean that for purposes of anticipation the question is whether the board relied on that in connection with the said fourteen i mean if i was reading and responding to the heading that says one to three twelve thirteen and sixteen just to then reference which of those were obvious this rounds based on the claim construction argument that some money presented because a lot is if you look at this case it is very wide reaching and a lot of it collapses the boards a great job but the quick home construction announce spanned about ten pages of it's opinion so a lot of this case even though it's wide reaching collapses to as we saw out of that spend raise or three issues and we haven't even talked about two of them we just talked about playing construction that awful lot and that's how should on correct your honor it's not supported by the inventors nero disclosure supposing that instead of amending claim seven the way it was amended there had been an amendment that included two new claims one of which was supported right or if i understand your honor the specification it's like a dumbbell you have the middle course i understand but i never took the claim we're just limited to talking about the relationship between the sag portion and the written description but i'll agree with you on that ok and then also a second claim could be a pole with a stopper portion that's higher than the extended portion right and that would be supported because it's in all of or above line fifty and below line fifty the inventor there was facing a very particular problem to that prevent unwanted in a way i understand i'm standing the background and so forth but what i'm really interested understanding is why you think the two claims that i drafted are different in substance from the claim that the patent distressed because your honor it's not fair to the disclosed invention the disclosed invention has to have a stop or an extender and a sack or else you don't have the pa controlling ring controlling two sets of balls all emanating from the ring where one person this does this is really neat invention it's about the paul's being different sizes all starting from the same time controlling some year to thirty one which is closer to the ring finger to thirty two which is farther relatively far from the ring simple question you does not including it in the claim but i mean if one can can have less than all of the features of the device right i mean that's surely not but your honor when there's  functional relationship that is nearly described here as to this specific problem this inventor was addressing to prevent unwanted engagement you then can't widen and forget about half of the invention this part then there's no support for that so next knowing that and understanding what your honour's been talking about you know i think there would be a question about those broader claims because they only make c features th part of the passage which talks about again it's like a dumbbell where you have a thin middle and two parts and the invention is about you know describing the two ends of the balls how they interact with the rain so we respectfully submit that this question of fact has substantial evidence in the boards in the inventor specification given what he was addressing in the board and had a plausible finding based on the evidence in the specifications thank you claims which are going distinctions that just aren't in the claims if the claims they're always pointing to this figure in the you have always point this is if the claims were written limited to what shown in figure six we wouldn't be here to so what i'm really concerned about is the issue of anticipation because the us this whole case really comes down to claim interpretation  aspects is the paul of the at least two sets of paul's does a reference to the paul does that inherently require a single you know that a single paul controlling when controls who said to call paul because we say that the anticipation argument us should be with proper claim construction should be a strong case so suppose you lose up to separation because we conclude that the claim construction but that the board adopted was correct now did you make the argument that we had been discussing and the judge dicus is in discussion with you and the other side you make the argument that no gun no renders the invention obvious but we didn't really bring that up as as part of the case because it just seemed like we wanted to focus on nagano because we were just trying to sell the hub's of she was trying to focus in tightly on the exact question that judge diecast which is the question i was trying to ask as well nonono did you are do that not enough with respect to the ring it can be fairly thick did you make an arrangement to the board in this case we i believe we did as part of our obviousness argument as saying well maybe the other prior art references whether it be won or whatever what you do is you jailed whatever ratings substitute those for these alleges sleaze of the prior art which shows you know these elongated control mechanisms of course remember by referring to an overall long gaited control know is there a place in the appendix that we could look to see exactly how that argument was articulated or can we have it i'm not sure we have to brace ourselves to the to the border i think not the case in figure eight that the controlling ring for thirty years controls both the paul for twenty three and the ball for twenty two which in turn control sun here to thirty two and to thirty three that's correct so that is a a controlling reader controls at least two sets of pots yes said ok so it so i thought your argument was that well one of the reasons that we conclude that we should not read the two sets of pa set of balls for only one son here actually it's not colored in the in the pattern but not color that sort is not colored in the pattern but we call it in that page thirty five of our brief to show th the contrary this is basically what we're arguing is that paper given even so if you assume that construction is still the issue of whether a means one or more so if a means one or more that means t part controlling rings control the pause for two sun gears and that is what exactly what we're talking about in figure thirty seven of our grief when we do show two rings the blue rings in the red rin