palin's proposed claim constructions but the existence of a computer fallen bottom in this pattern is clearly supported by the intrinsic record and the prosecution history likewise the appellate the district court sanctions rowlings right at the end of the supplemental order and sanctions here are they indicated that the courts and the kid it was reimposing the ruhleben sanctions that were assessed in two thousand and six and overturned by this court in two thousand and seven and also indicated that it was fine in this case to be an exceptional case in the session sanctions against but myself and my client sections in my or clean brief as well it makes clear that a hard copy document is only an example of the type of information that can be input into the system i direct around it for example two  nstant every one of these objects is but i read in the summary of the invention a car and two lines twenty nine thirty seven it says it's another object of the invention to provide an application program to face which allows the user to put information which is to be transmitted into a particular transmission format based upon the needs of the receiver of the information there's no mention there into hard copy document i would direct your honor not just to these sections that i've cited column four lines thirty six to forty four of the teach all description column seven lives forty five to fifty four which clearly states that information input from a hard copy dow cumin is just an example of the type of information it also talks about inputting are references to that but it's not limited to that talks about using the keyboard to input information for example your honor if you look at figure five this is the input document and there are three sources and if you read the description of figure five one is the scanner the second is a character input which is reference as you item two three four it well it primarily about a hard copy document began to come back to the fact that the language in the specification makes clear that a hard copy document is only an example of the type of information that can be were two three for the image input module inputs image information for example a digitized image of the actual parents of the hard copy documents both types of information hard copy document and the non part copy document source of information from extracts information off the hard copy document then it goes in addition information can be input by user responses and jet digital and analog signals generated from various devices and fro computer files from other computer systems so the first two sentences are clearly talking about include information from a hard copy document source whereas the latter two senses that state that the same information can be input from module and how both of them can access the communication interface and it in case a module is implemented in hardware software or a combination of hardware and software so that's the input process model one can be implemented in software to input company and its principle lack of regard for the judicial system a whole series of items the court who issue sanction ye i think a lot of that stemmed from there was reference to questions during a deposition about access to our documents my client had moved around to get divorced he then moved overseas to kenya certain things were lost i did not prosecute these documents w or relevant documents but that's not the case if we had we would not have been able to produce all the documents we sent them in connection with this case the claim construction documents that claim charts licensing inquiries i disappoint that that the destruction of documents in this case occurred back in two thousand and three at the end of the reach soft side really destruction of spinning out the files to get rid of non rev and documents public documents such as product information for the kids product by the entities that created these businesses for him and this is construction documents i had connection with this case and all the other young cases i filed claim trucks from this case from other cases licensing letters discovery responses in fact that's how they found that discovery response that they took  please the court my name is melissa bailey and i represent five star in this case i'd like to start with the discussion of claim construction and on that subject like to just make a few comments about the specification and then address some of the arguments that you on that raise for the first time and it's portion of the specification that just reference defines the action as a whole as a method for processing hard copy documents in its position is that the claims mean essentially the opposite of the definition of the invention as it stated in the specification the specification says the invention is processing hard copy documents that says the claims have nothing to do with hard copy documents that can't cite a case and we can't find one where the invention as a whole not a preferred  of the invention as a whole is defined as x and the claims are construed to be the opposite of x and in fact the cases say something entirely different which is if the invention as a whole is defined as x then the claims must be construed to encompass the only object of the invention listed that does not actually say the three words hard copy document in the sentence but you'll note that that object of the invention directly corresponds with a problem with conventional systems that is transmitted to a particular application program in a specific transmission format and so the same the same substance as it is addressed in the object of the invention even though it doesn't actually say three words in that particular sentence i'd also like to address the colon reference and i'd like to say that this argument was raised for the first time on reply and so really it's waved because it wasn't raised in the district court and it wasn't in the opening brief  but i would like to address it because it really does show how its arguments are completely divorced from what the specification actually says so with respect to fifty four and seven  has been discussed that language a figure five and the language talks about an image information and then states both types of information comprise an input document which is transmitted to information processing module two point now that wants this sentence to say each type of information can independently comprise an input to the system but that's not what it says is it says that both types of information together comprise a single input to the system now this becomes very clear when you look at figure five and the other thing that becomes very clear when you look at is that both the information and the image information is being derived from hard copy document so figure five you have a scanner and you end up with an image copy and a text copy now what are those copies of the only thing that they can be copies of is the original hard copy document so there's nothing in this seven figure five that supports that's cleaned and i would say one other example of something that was released for the first time the reply brief which also shows how divorced these arguments get from specification and maps to figure ten now in their reply brief and says in the reply brief that figure ten shows quote input information coming from other external devices instead of document d at the bottom of column nine as showing the output from the system so i mean this is just another example of how misplaced arguments i'd also like to address the  modem is actually depicted in a lot of the figures in the patent including figure ten which talks about the output of the invention and so figure ten shows that a document can be output through a motor figure nine actually also shows that  information from a hard copy document can be transmitted through an application unit and by the same logic perhaps a hard copy document scanned one can be transmitted through to the processing system but the fact that there is a communications interface there doesn't say anything about what kinds of information can or can't be processed by the invention so i'd like to say just a few words about the millennium p district court's finding of misconduct in this case so the district court found as your honor has noted that it destroyed documents on purpose and interest and in anticipation of filing cases like this one and the district court was in the best position to make that that that no documents were retained and there's nothing to suggest as mr zimmerman does that instead of retaining documents that was giving them to its counsel the documents were not retained by anybody once they were in the possession of  that's right the public prosecution histories and then all of the licensing letters to all kinds of different defendants telling them that they infringed the patents and the licenses that were actually entered so there were no  about the destruction of documents and about the other misconduct and unprofessional conduct in this case is sufficient to support the section two eighty five ruling the exceptional case ruling can also be upheld on the ground that young that's claimed construction positions were less in this case the specification actually precluded in the most straightforward way possible and that's claimed construction positions when the invention is defined as x in the specification and  specification we would argue we also know in this case how that came up with its claim construction positions and we know that they were created without any reference to the law or to the specification dr medina testified that he came up with the constructions by thinking about what was in his mind when he wrote the claims of the him that patents in one thousand nine hundred nine but what was in his mind has nothing to do with claim construction and nothing in one thousand nine hundred nine has anything to do with construction because the critical date hundred one and so there's really nothing objective or subjectively reasonable about how these claim can about how these claim construction positions were arrived at and in fact it appears that the law was entirely ignored reasonable when it remanded this case for claim construction proceedings and all the court really said in his prior opinion is look it is making an argument on claim construction and the district court should hear it of the claim construction positions in this case and it's also very clear that he came up with those positions without talking to any lawyers including his own he admitted at his deposition  then connection with the other deposition testimony which i have already discussed it's clear that dr who also didn't refer to didn't have any notion of what the relevant law is and didn't refer to the specification in coming up with that claim construction positions and the there is no discussion as miss bailey just talked about how these things are combined together to be processed this clearly shows information included from communication one four zero input in the process that's why the claim says document or file on a computer that's why the claims in the second and thirty on that patents the six hundred said not the six nine seven six seven three and one sixty patents don't mention hard copy documents the first patents the money and all those claims explicitly recites hard copy documents none of the claims in these last two patents mention it and none of the claims in the cleary continuation patents in fact the glory continuation patents explicitly say process information not derived from scanned hard copy incorporate elements showing and the language of the claims that were allowed incorporate language that was in the specification that indicates information can come from non hard copy documents sources such that's really my point about the destruction of documents couple of issues of the things i take issue with did unfortunately my client is  public documents we sent claim charge those are not public documents so the only good thing i bring your attention your honor is that in response to mr de deposition question about mr medina where you testified there is nobody else  no place to look in response to whether you look for documents requested by flacks starr that was just confirmation that his documents are retained by the attorneys that counts and richard agents and i would direct you to a three