cylinder at a minimum as to both issues there are disputes of fact for a jury to resolve first as to the ownership of the four nine six nine six six patent in the jr age eight forty eight is the reserved rights provision and the first sentence of that makes clear that the patent application engaged in for until i met j eight hundred forty eight your honor and in paragraph three it says reserved right the patent application which is defined in the assignment as application three seventy nine includes claims relating to the following items so the reserved rights provision expresses recognizes that the patent application that is the subject of the sensor unit and those claims and rights related to those technologies are expressed we reserve from a sign by the following sentence this assignment shall not cover any rights in the proprietary technologies and and sufficient consideration for the transfer of the asylum yes i would assume so your honor but by the terms of the assignment agreement itself it doesn't assign the patent for s that is the subject of the development agreement and the other side doesn't contend the t m s that was to be developed and developing it was ever assigned the assignment language in the assignment which is on eight eight forty seven paragraph t says except as set forth in section three which is the reserved rights provision i started with the entire right title in interest domestic and foreign in and to the inventions and discoveries set forth in the patent application and that's the three seven  application and it's important to understand that the three seven one application ultimately divided into three patents two of which are the four nine six and the nine six six which we say were not assigned because they concern in a proprietary technologies and the third states the proprietary technologies or whatever before and in the next sentence this assignment shall not cover any rights to the patent application that concern the amma tronics proprietary inventions and mclaughlin shall therefore not be given any rights that that is a current license that is operative that the development agreement content contemplated at some point in the future if the tedium asked that was the subject of the development agreement were developed they shall get a life developed in what the read that it doesn't the communications link is defined doesn't include the sensor unit the display result in a claim that match matches the four elements that you read from the definition of a t p m s instead the independent claims one seven seventeen in the four nine six pattern track the definition of communications link eight thirteen in the development remit as being the tire pressure monitoring system to be developed here under and no one claims that was developed was not the development green was not brought to fruition it's not the systems that are claimed to the communications link is defined so broadly throughout this development agreement and it's clear that you that am me not animatronics is going to possess that the rights to that system even if it includes your property in that system but that system never came to fruition so that's not the patents being sued on today that's the important point about the t p m mess in the district court lost that distinction defendants try to light over that distinction by claiming that because the four nine six relates to systems claims and those systems could be considered tire pressure monitoring systems that in me therefore obtain the rights to it under either the assignment or the development of the image is there something that allows us to discovery set forth in the patent application and so the question is whether the patents at issue here are the four not six and the nine six six were reserved from that because they did issue from the three seven hundred divisional to three seven i whether they were reserved and it's important to understand i think that the three seven application resulted in only three patents so the system's claims that became the four nine six patents do relate to the communications like using the gram plane as a vehicle and those are the only claims that this first sentence in the reserved rights provision could be referring to because there aren't any there aren't any individual component new communications link claims in the first century version in the three seven  and the and the remaining claimed claim thirty eight of the application became the ninety eight and it was a claim for this play much in this way module wasn't reserved and was assigned so if you can see that this tracks claim seven if i can just walk you through an example claim seven in the three seven nine allocation is on page a forty eight seventy nine of the j it became claim seven of the one three eight when it was divided out of divisional because there are multiple invention it is one of the claims referred to in the first sentence of the reserved rights clause the patent application includes claims relating to the following items and it is the communications link it claims a sensor and electro matic path a transmitter receiver and a monitor and that tracks the definition in the assignment on page eight forty seven a communications link a transmitter integrated circuit components a receiver the communications protocol and software in the methodology used there ian and you can see that  in the three seven nine application that are reserved and so if you look at the three seven one application it resulted in three patents one set of patterns direct it's a communications link which is the four ninety six communications using rights because the systems and components distinction that they draw is untenable it doesn't carry through the communications link itself is the final development as a system and paragraph nine in the development agreement  but let me just move you to i think what was the second point that you were going to cover about the cylindrical generally cylindrical i must tell you that frankly i mean you're relying on the testimony of dr moon and dr lee or dr joye i'm sorry it seems to me the testimony comes down to them saying that squares and rectangles can be cylinders that seems a little nonsensical to me so you have want to give it a shot yes your honor thank you very much for taking me there i think the best place to look is an essay the joint appendix a page twenty three fifty eight and the pages before and after that these are part of dr moos reports but these are diagrams she's taken from other sources so this isn't just our experts say so that cylinder has a broader side and you squash it just slightly you're going to have what you or i envision as a rectangle with some curvature so it's just not that far fetched to say that that something beyond a soda can can be generally cylindrical and that's from a rectangular box now are you saying that t shaped device is entirely cylinder acacias are you referring to the pictures on page twenty three fifty nine probably and that's that's also in our expert's report and it's also drawn from another source not our experts drawing and yes your honor but we are saying that shapes that have two different  generally cylindrical portions put together can be in their entirety generally cylindrical by the way i'm wondering as well why we're arguing about a term which is has an ordinary meaning to a lay person why are you presenting expert testimony on that why why do we have experts on the meaning of claim construction projects words can inform a claim construction but once you have a claim construction and it's explain it in lay terms to the jury why did you bring in an expert to explain the judge's lay explanation to the jury well i think there are two ways a look at your honor i think going back to your first question the judge erred by using a lay person is over isn't it yes yes we agreed with the other side that cylinder aisha's could be interpreted as generally cylindrical we disagree with the judge's further refinement of his complaint construction for the first time in a summary judgement opinion where he interpreted that to be limited to a right circular cylinder and that was inconsistent with what one of skill you are would understand it and that's precisely what his court says one should do which is take into consideration for a technical term like this  he says i further refine my claim construction and he limited it to a dictionary definition of right circular cylinder and we claim that is either an error of law as error of claim construction for not looking at expert testimony or it should have gone to the jury and our our expert to test said we have no no no complaint with the agreed upon definition ok i believe at least i understand your point all in this should should not have been addressed by the district court in reaching the decision that there's no jurisdiction in this case that there are as i was hoping to start there actually i think there are three responses to that number one they can see that the nine three eight patent which did issue from the three not three seven nine application is governed by the scope of this assignment  so that point right there addresses and refutes their argument that this is simon agreement and that the three seven nine patent is somehow different from the cheap e m s that was supposed to be a sign they can see that that at least some pieces of the of the three seven nine application belong to mclaughlin electronics and so that board has already been opened in fact this is plain from the recitals in the assignment agreement itself give  mclaughlin would receive any patents issued with respect to that system so this is the definite article point they keep making and then the next recital goes on to refer to the three seventy nine application and then the very next recital says well in accordance with the development agreement animatronics desired to desires to assign certain patent rights mclaughlin and we go through the agreement itself in the actual assignment language is unambiguous it says the three seven nine application actually the inventions and discoveries in the three seventy nine application a broad notion of assignment in order ship go to mclaughlin subject to this limited reservation that's called out in paragraph three in other words the inventions and discoveries in the three seven nine applications that deal with communications and those two other categories you know would great were not a side absolutely or our position has been that throughout the s was going to be the property of the development agreement sets that out clearly in the development agreement a sort of interesting chronology here the development agreement starts out by drawing but the keeping of that the whole system isn't necessarily what's the system that's their argument that somehow by virtue of of be carved out extended to these very three specifically defined and specifically enumerated points that any claim that in any way touches on those even if they inventions itself you could have done so very simply by just simply saying claims one through making this up one through thirty eight are not part are subject to resurrect ations by animatronics but let me let me sort of step back on this what the pardons did in march of ninety ninety three was they were entering into a joint development agreement and they thought they quite wisely did the right thing which is let's not fight about who invented what when it was let's instead draw some lines in the development agreement about what would be developed pursuant to this joint arrangement both parties brought something to the table will often brought technology and money animatronics brought technology that's in the recitals of the development agreement that was prospect if they didn't know what they were going to develop and so broadly what they said was the g p s level inventions those go to mclaughlin and the components of the individual things that are made mass those things will be reserved animatronics but not the whole system that went to well off and in fact google often would even yet in the field of tire pressure monitoring would get a excuse me an exclusive fully paid up royalty free license to use those components what makes this a little confusing however is the definition of communication link talks about system why is that a different system than the system you're talking about turns on the issue of of what the system is i mean if this is a at one level that is i think a semantic point that they've tried inject into this when we say system we mean the tire pressure monitoring system in the development agreement it said that this pyar pressure monitoring system the whole thing would be would be a sign to move off that now within that the agreement was also very clear that one component of the t p m mass was a communication link and that too was a system of a system with much narrower scope the communication link is simply the system that takes the tire pressure information that the sensor creates and then sends it over to the receiver side where the display module van can display it to the driver so so yes the communication link is described as a system but it is described as a system that is but one component of the overall t p m apps and so what they have something clear to talk about now they can frame an assignment precisely and they can say these specific things everything in this agreement goes to my speed and everything in this patent application goes  limited three exceptions and i want to i want to address those three exceptions they are the communication link of course but there are also things that are individual subcomponents or pieces of the sensor unit itself and that point is important for the five one six that if in fact animatronics wanted to reserve to itself the sensor unit module which they admit ultimately became claimed in the five one six patent which is the subject of our cross appeal if they had wanted to carve out the sensor unit there was a very simple way for them to do so which is just simply disable right in this reserved rights animatronics also reserves all rights to the why isn't that part of the it was not m h l as i recall it making even making the three seven nine application record enjoyed it kind of so we had to bring it in but it was the entire application part of the record a little yes your honor  it's very clear from comparing the development greenman and the assignment agreement that the scope of the rights that were reserved animatronics diminished between the time of the development agreement and the assignment agreement which is a very key point here this is not a matter of hindsight this is actually a matter of animatronics originally reserved for itself the component level invention and they originally defined the anima know a certain way and they they they define those on a a fourteen and what happened over the ensuing eight months is that animatronics reserve less rights in the assignment agreement it set out in the documentary you know it's funny because i read it the reverse i mean the development agreement is being broader as referring only to patents issued with respect to that system which is incorporated in the whereas class of the assignment but when you get to the a fine mint itself it's limited to the inventions included in the three seven nine application as opposed to this global t p m asked system patents related to that so i tell me why i'm wrong but i see it as never up with application i'm getting no dispute that that application inventions and discoveries set forth in that application include the four nine six and the nine six six patent in this case there's no question about that but about five sixteen five sixt patents also set forth in there and there was a single point in judge ward's decision with regard to the standing issue with with the five sixteen patent that i'd like to draw this work through to one issue and it is order that spent of these kind of a forty four and it was it was a single point actually that kept judge ward we submit from from concluding that the five sixteen pattern was also disclosed and on a forty five says that the paragraph wonders discussion the second to last sentence of that paragraph and the key words being the last four words of that sentence namely that the pressure transducer has to be quote located within the tire close now was a claim construction points clearly a matter of what the scope is of the five sixteen clams and it's incorrect it is an incorrect claim construction that you can read the claims of the five sixteen patent they are generic as to whether the pressure transducers inside the tire outside the base that's the same point though what i what i think is key and judge wards which isn't really dealt with a lot of in the briefing and maybe it's because he claims it's somebody abandoned certain arguments what i think is key is the next to  last sentence in the second paragraph which is its decision it seems to me was based on his conclusion that the three seventy nine did not disclose all limitations of the five sixteen and we understand that statement your honor to be a matter of claim destruction there's no support for that and so we presented him with with the detail mapping of how the five sixteen claims to map to the disclosure in the five limitations don't line up that was exclusively based on the within the tire analysis he had in the preceding paragraph we believe so your honor i mean there was there was one other issue that was in question below that has not been raised by m h l now on appeal and that's this issue of whether the air that flows in and out that contacts the sensor or whether whether the the air that a sense by the sensor has to be exhausted the atmosphere was an issue below it hasn't been raised on appeal but we think that george ward in addressing this issue only rested his his decision on standing on the the location of the pressure transducer not this other issue about whether there was some requirement in the claim for the air to flow to atmosphere it's kind of hard to figure that out t the search i mean he's entitled to a lot of deference to the air and where he makes conclusory statement that the three seven nine doesn't disclose all the limitations of the five sixteen it's kind of hard to decide whether that's right or wrong necessarily determination about the limitations when i'm not saying that maybe you can't figure out what where the record sites are for what you're saying here your honor of a very important point here is the standard of review is used in overall on this issue there's no underlying factual issue here this is purely an issue of claim construction so i don't believe the court needs to go so far as to say that you used his discretion and in reaching this conclusion we think that it really is just a matter of whether he made the one sort of  one overly narrowing claim construction that would require that this pressure transducer be located in the in the tire itself or in the wheel very clever analysis would judge ward taking the assignment at all and it's a little product in that and also the part of point and the carve up point we submit it just simply cannot be squared with the fact that the reserve rights clauses specifically delineate only certain portions of know they can't say we reserve the higher sensor units when they took pains to specify little small pieces of that like that sensor be we would submit that would be a contract instruction that would be really all odds with with the plane what makes up a machine go back to me original development tried the communication link is disappears to find the assignment but at eight forty seven it actually makes very clear that that the sensor unit basically hands off the pressure information to the communication link the communication link is a thing that gets it over to the other side and then there's a display units or contemplates this three separate component architecture if you will sensor unit communication link in the middle display module on the driver side so the feature which leads to a stop a consequences on their arrangement argument but so there that that's ultimately what the five sixteen you know came to be so i think that the correct answer is broadly they saw it as using that wheel as the antenna but then they had to add in th you don't have to construing an assignment that's written as broadly as this assignment of the law and you're not bound sort of to the rigid your sort of written description type approach we think we prevail in a written description approach but they minutes could you tell us very quickly if you can see did the three seventy nine application discloses all of the limitations of five sixteen no your honor absolutely not our first argument is that as defined in the assignment and and that is not right it's not a narrow carve out yes it defines a proprietary technology specifically but then it reserves any rights that concerned those and expressing says any claim that they are claims in the three seven their reading and i did my other point you because i really think you out of address it you say the specifications are different there on page twenty five and twenty six no point do you say the claims aren't all the limitations of the claims aren't found in the three seventy nine do you that the precise wording your honor may not be there but you just say the specifications are different we would ask that you would affirm the district court judge on his r from the three seven nine application because the claims all broke down and became the four nine six the nonsuch six and the one three eight that can't be right that can't be right the reserved rights clause expressly says there are claims relating to the three seven one application