please the court my name is jamie mcdowell and i represent baltimore airport company also known as the ac d c asked this court to vacate three of the district court's decisions first the district court's decision on summary judgment relating to the priority of claims twenty two twenty six of the seven eighty two patent second the district court's decision to allow the jury to decide an issue of claim scope and violation of o two micro and and third the district court's decision the district court erred when it held that on summary judgment that be a seek could not corroborate the sworn testimony of inventor tom carter relating to his conceptions of claims twenty two and twenty six that's not  corroborated five of the six elements of your starting points but even if this court were to hold otherwise there was corroboration of that final element mr carter expressly did conversion calculations relating to the inferences are to be drawn in our favor and so if a reasonable jury could consider mr carter's testimony credible then we should have won on summary judgment and s p x concedes the fact that mr carter's testimony could and there is some independent way to corroborate the truth of what i've said not not a question of my veracity or my credibility right i agree with that your honor and we do have documents  b b a c two a conception standard for corroboration finding that although immense must have been corroborated and legal legally erroneous to ignore the evidence and i don't think she  evidence your honor i think what happened is she had the wrong standard because if we look at some of her findings some of her findings indicate that mr carter's testimony is in fact credible or could be credible because this is a summary judgment standard it's not whether the inventor's is credible or maybe even credible in the expressions of his own thoughts on conception but it's whether the inventor's corroborated with with evidence outside of the head of the of the inventor i agree with you your honor that is that is what corroboration is that there is independent evidence in documents contemporaneous with the inventive process that would corroborate  she rejected s p x as claim construction that threw meant throughout the entire and we raised this again on summary judgment and she found it was untenable to find that there could only be one type of airflow we again raise this issue and motions and limiting she did not decide the issue but as we got to trial s p x started picking away and started making putting in more evidence and more argument arguing the issue of claims scope and after the court refused to provide her jury instruction which came directly was she from her claim construction order rejecting s p x as argument we asked the judge to tell the jury what the parents got up in closing and what did s p x tell the jury they should do after discussing that issue across flow failed what did he invent on march seventeenth he surely invented something decide the issue of claims court as to what mr carter invented and when the jury was not given the right or to navigate the currents of the river it was left to its own devices to decide what the issues of through the direct section that in and of itself that that fact is not disputed so i can see how the district court may have gotten confused that i'm going to send it to something to the jury to decide but there was nothing left to decide at that point and we again tried to raise this issue on jame all to the district court after trial and she again denied our request why don't you tell us a little bit about the six t through twenty five the sixty five patents explains what priority pulldown has typically been limited to no more than two percent of the returns done with the packing has been limited to density that would typically less than one point zero and possibly slightly greater than one point zero up to one point zero two three pull down however such increase density was not controllable uniform the six eighty five patent picked up where the prior are left off there are two sets of claims one requiring a need to as ratio of greater than one point zero two and one requiring a d to as ratio of greater than one point zero one point and claim twenty relates to the deed as ratio greater than one point zero there is this guy it uses a little bit different wording it says the is greater than s but that that that ratio is d to ask greater than one point  and we also know from claim twelve which depends on claim one that the inventor added a uniformity limitation to claim one three depending on this court has held that the doctrine of claim differentiation is strongest when we're why is s used throughout the invention and not in the specification referred to as being your form with respect to one of the claims and maybe not with respect to the others but yet the same claims i don't think so your honor because the uniformity you were first to remember we're talking about coils that are in three dimensions and so these certain change tubes actually make one for more than one pass over each other and if we have sorry the fact of the uniform and let's say we have an ass at the top that is half of an inch and then we go down to the next place of contact and it's point four five and we go down to the next place where it touches then at twenty four two inches those all are going to have a different they are certainly not uniform but they are still going to meet that d d s ratio of greater than one point of it conceived of all claims on march seventeenth two thousand and three but it failed to identify any document showing a complete conception of all limitations of claims twenty two and twenty six at any time part of the filing date even we wouldn't say that in fact there is no link between those documents that there needs to be more that explains as as we had explained in our briefing mr welch theses own expert told us that merely referring to cross phil is not enough cross fulfilled does not get you across the airflow direction you need to know the context in which the crossbow fill is applied where the inlets where the outlets where the baffles for example the walls surrounding the unit had put crossflow film into that i d c prototype you would not get crossflow airflow because as mr carter explained at trial in lit is at the bottom it out with us at the top and the walls are blocked off so you can't have air flowing from side to the extent that in this particular instance the a c s failed to provide any corroboration of the cross flow limitation the e c only provided references to proselyte documents without ever explaining how the crossflow fill in those that i will address that point your honor the jury had found the claim sixteen was not infringed even though the district court had told the jury that the only issue that needed to be decided was whether the proclaimed sixteen was with airflow generally upwardly through the direct elated request a year and a half after the markman to further construe the eighty's own construction of the work through and to add a construction of the tunnel from prizes to contradict pieces arguments there was no claim construction dispute a trial appeal that you can be both generally upwardly and gently downwardly in the direct section bases council told the jury during closing argument that the issue it needed to decide was whether airlines up for air went down and that there was evidence supporting both conclusions of the site for that is three three two zero seven zero three three two four three six further pc's own expert repeatedly admitted that up is not down where p c is actually seeking to do on appeal later attempted to back off of that definition say it was only an alternative construction the ac had proposed that with regard to be ac certain that the jury should have found infringement based on the last four inches that's also incorrect because the evidence at trial that was offered show that air consistently left the field sections lower than the height at which it entered indicating a downward flump at sites for that or a three two seven five five five seven  there's a special pendants one for two three two seven through three two through eight and three two seven four six two fifty eight moreover the district court for the jury could have properly concluded that the last four inches were not actually part of the direct spacing that was less than the smallest particle the court there found that the plaintiff cannot later argue that there was only one gap between adjacent place to be the spacing limitation this is an almost identical situation here but here it's actually even stronger because it's the twenty and one because there are other differences so for this court is held in the past not always kind of hunch ation not a hard and fast rule but it doesn't necessarily apply doesn't require that each limitation between different claims  pointed out and his argument there's a space in difference between those two coins moreover there's actually a slight difference in the language whereas claims one and thirteen say yes it is thus basing between each adjacent circuit and the and then the patent also goes on to say that this is needed and the need of the invention that it's just described are met by the present invention meets those needs to increase in uniform so which discusses how there is a need in th order of one percent and the pattern in column eleven specifically says that the overall goal this pattern is felt and you talk about the cumulative effect over many circus so it's not sufficient to just say between one circuit i densif i need to actually have that effect and impact over multiple circuits so that i can either have a smaller housing or i can add more circuits at the end so what the pattern is talking about is not just having a very localized density increase it's having entire t your coin uniformly you live or die by uniformity and as i said in very hard to avoid uniformity in the real well to the extent that there's a dispute over the uniform of the claims courts claim construction doesn't actually have the words uniform and has asked advantages the patent wants to get and i just doubt that well there's there's additional also of consistent functionality so if you also have to be that have inconsistent properties and so if you have inconsistent spacing inconsistent diameter you now have a system where first like to address the arguments by my friend with respect to conception issue one the priority now my friend stated that mr carter never made the connection between crossflow phil and moving air generally across the directive after exception that simply incorrect your honor if we look at appendix site two two one three seven paragraph eighteen mr carter states as part of his declaration crossflow phil would direct air to flow at least across the director of effort of section mr trotter the assistant to mr carter submitted a declaration as well in support of our opposition mr trotter states at appendix like two two one five zero paragraph five the crossflow phil would direct air to flow at least across the direct of effort of section they the link was there and again this is decision again stating raytheon is correct that corroborating evidence need not disclose each and every aspect of the claimed invention citing both cooper and fleming and that's that two thousand and eighteen westlaw one five nine eight one but overall the corroborating evidence has to compositional play with patients i think the corroborating evidence your honor only has to determine is the inventor testimony credible the conception is where all the elements correct your honor and that's why the conception usually boils down to an inventor testifying because it's something that happened in his mind the corroboration requirement is there to determine if that inventors testimony credible