honor i'd like to focus in on just a couple of different matters for purposes of this argument with respect first addressing the claim construction issue in this case there are really two parts of the case or parts of the claim that we'd like to focus in on the first being the definition of a case and the second and an air movement device that is contained within the case itself and that case is supposed to fit in the drive bay area of the computer itself first records construction of the term case that a case constitutes a structure for printing and holding something is very broad and far too broad to be left standing what it allows the jury to do was use what i would call an alternative or one of the optional definitions of what we're containing means we think a better word in the proper word is that the case has to be in the enclosure look at plain language says it's configured to meet the dr base law why isn't the enough if it contains something it is configured to meet to match the drive base law why isn't that sufficient clarity of what was claimed because of the word containing here are a bucket might contain some water a schoolyard might contain some children but in this instance purpose of the case itself is to direct the airflow into a specific region of the computer and if it's configured to and if it match the drive bay slot plate which that face plate over the drive base as defined by the district court it's being figured to go over that slot but it's really just state two dimensional component of the case itself if if we're talking about configured to fit into the drive bay itself which is another term in the patent then that is the three dimensional area that encompasses not only the slot as the district court instrument and three dimensional area behind that slot which the drug would fit into where you want to save course that it's got to be a six sided rectangle that could exist it goes through and perhaps there are some variations that would fit but the spec goes on i would put it to the court that was a throwaway line in the specification therefore so that the power is reconciled inconsistent for it is inconsistent would you address the question of whether the district court could properly find that these coins were mom obviously these deep and plans were non obvious as a matter of law what the district court ruled in that respect was that the prior art had been submitted or that we had proven that it was reasonably pertinent to this particular field of art but always this did you preserve this issue answers no you didn't so as a matter of fact you it's an argument for a new trial based on an inconsistent were rather than argument for jamiel yes or and i don't think the there's not a assertion by the other side that that already mitt has been wasn't going to consider these four pieces that are basically computer cooling devices were you submitted and that the experts testified to and ruled that it wasn't reasonably pertinent to this field of art i would say as a matter of law any cool weiss and computer whether be a fan or some other type of cooling device that's precisely the issue you cannot raise a this school opened content of the prior art is factual that you have waived you can argue as judge dyke is suggesting that there is some error in the way the judge reconciled the verdicts but i'm afraid you don't get to argue the factual evidence of the prior art to a stew you i don't get the weight of are you don't get to argue that the scope and content of the prior somehow proves your case because that's factual well you can argue is that the judge was improper in the way that he reconciled his verdict so he did have conflict in verdicts and he had to choose one of the two why didn't he choose the right one that the jury said it's not obvious because of because of the reasonably pertinent to this particular field of art judge denied that was that was a part of his reasoning the part of his reasoning you can't really question you didn't preserve that but you can tell us why you think is a matter of law he eats wrong or as a matter  as a matter of law your honor if you just look at the one hole reference that was before the reference didn't occupy substantially the entire drive baseline so there's a clear distinction between it and the claimed invention distinction without a difference your honor it performs the same task in the same way the only difference between the pollard reference and the accused of ice is whether or not the faceplate goes where the p t o p t o granted it and that was prior to this court's ruling in the supreme court's ruling with respect to the claim construction your honor on the outside of the computer disapproving air in for decades the p t o was aware of that raised a number of hurdles in that respect and then somehow distinguished on the fact that the face plate did not get the entire just briefly on second opening the definition of second opening and the district courts denial of the summary judgment on that issue saying that the backside of the fan could be a second opening the problem with the district courts construction there is that it's a separate opening in the chase not a separate opening somewhere what the court did was combine the fan on the antec device and the front face plate on the antec device and called the front face plate first opening and said that there was a possibility that the back side of the fan could be the suck it up if it's a matter of why you are that is incorrect it has to be a second opening in the case and the court was directing its attention to the second opening as being the backside of a fan there's no dispute that the antec devices are simply face plates with fans mounted on the in one of them but there are there is as a matter of was no separate second opening in that case unless they can some of the court can somehow find that the front side why doesn't have to be a neutron because of the inconsistent for your honor the inconsistent verdict was reconciled body by the court granting r j m a well that issue has not been appealed it's not been argued what you mean it hasn't been  at the consider the evidence and found the evidence in substantial to support that finding well that's the question i mean it we were view that the no vote for the court's not factual finding this is your obviousness knots why they're asking for a new trial your honor when the the judge was there to listen to the testimony she observed the device in question she should listen to the cross examination of the expert witnesses expert witnesses which indicated that they did not understand the market order they indicated that they did it refuted whether or not there was a second was testimony from from  this issue on whether or not the judge this issue is not been fully briefed at this point because it was not raised on appeal the standard by which the the court looks at the  no no not the there is there is precedent this court has recognized that the court has an obligation try to reconcile the the order of this and i'm reconciled verdict is it's not it's can't be reconciled there has to be a new trial if they can stands if if it would not result in then justice but mr driscoll what were the real issues is whether or not the district court correctly reconcile same issue of inconsistent verdict yes it is your are so they have preserve their motion for a new trial if preserve if in fact the issue of the new trials before us what is  there were the claims obvious were they infringed was it willful infringement looks like a special verb i would say that that's a because it involves issues of of law that it would be a general verdict under forty nine on what basis is there a case for that there would be that was briefed in the lower court in iran or the district court level when this issue was raised first and it was because it involves an issue of of law not just an issue of fact but case says that the fact that it's an issue of law means in a general or in general is a terminations of liability or liability and images are not such a determination here by gerry ryan where there was a there was a conclusion that it was  a an infringement on it wasn't it or even obviousness decision it wasn't as if there was a question on whether or not each element was was found in the device is as you would expect in iraq a tory but a special case i think that there was some uncertainty even in this court just a few weeks ago and it's uncertainty other what is a forty nine and forty nine b with respect to the callaway case that was recently decided and i'd like to take a moment to distinguish that case from this case and that case was also a system verdict and in that case the the court found that indeed first of all there was no rule fifty in the motion to resolve the court in that fifty motion so they are forced to to look into the issue of waiver with respect to the verdict and they considered the forty nine and the situation that case and they also determined that there was no waiver because the parties had objected to the inconsistent verdict before the jury left that's not the situation we have here now but you agree that there does need to be an injection before the jury  the but again i go back to the the procedural aspect that it has been the that r j mol decision is not at issue right now that decision resolve the aren't you troubled it all by the fact that there is still an inconsistent verdict that's been that you say is immune from challenge it's immune from challenge now your honor if they want to challenge the honor they have not challenge the judge's order with respect to her findings that there was in substantial evidence overturned because the parties had reserved their right to contest the inconsistent verdict under forty nine b there was no such preservation here on either party's side and we mean they when they made a new trial motion on the grounds of inconsistent birthright but your honor that was basis yes your honor but it was based upon the fact that you could you could you could move for a new trial based on a consistent verdict under rule forty nine not under fifty nine as they moved under forty nine which doesn't require such a high standard for  abused its discretion and the other it didn't the main difference your honor is that the finding of willfulness put in place an obligation to describe with specificity why enhanced damages would could not be greater would are not granted more weight furthermore there's other or other read factors including the district court actually reviewed the read factors and went through them what the hell is that an abuse of discretion how is that denying you anything that you deserve  the requirement your honor is that there be some explanation of the record of the reed factor this imbalance in the read facts you term that enhanced damages were not appropriate in this case the judge indicated just just one or two of the read factors and didn't seem to balance them all and because the finding of willfulness it would appear that a greater analysis is required for the more i raise the issue that whether or not enhanced damages or the doctrine somehow affected by the heightened for a little more than two minutes remaining i want it that much your honor as director well the only thing that i'd like to add at this juncture is to point out to the court that the document that iraq so just like to point out for the record that when this verdict came in both parties were confused by it and both parties well infringement for us to infringement normally that was never objected to so we would we argued in our brief that that was a rumor fifty b motion theory must be made before putting the motion in the right yes sir but it would seem that the parties that it's not necessarily a statutory or jurisdictional issue that it is a procedural