i have knowledge of her credentials and i'm satisfied that she possesses the necessary qualifications in fact i have unique knowledge of her financials it seems like every time that i think the admission of a l helps and then she she went to duke to get her ph d in chemistry and then she went to berkeley for a law school where she had the cover off the ball and now she's been with me for eighteen months where she has not just  money your honor before we get started i want to feel caution of course that we are subject to international traffic in arms regulations requirements and for that reason we wanted to flag for you that we should avoid disclosing i tar materials  and there's only really one area that that possibly could come up and i just wanted to direct your attention to authentic speech to forty one and the structure is talked but if we talk quite a bit about the structure and the respect briefings and so on just for purposes of brevity we'll call it figure two given the fact that these codes are highly confidential and the bottom portion of this structure will just refer to the c r c readout as opposed to the please the court proving reduction to practice in this case should have been straightforward the credibility of raytheon's inventors and experts were not challenged by the board or by sony and the veracity and reliability of the property evidence particularly in  several problems with out and the first one is a legal one which is that under the rule of reason the starting point is the inventor testimony because remember that in pretty reduction of practice here we do not rely on documentary evidence alone we relied on the offender testimony corroborated by the our brief one hundred percent and i guess it's just answer your first question about this intended structure this really leads to the second rule of reason error which is we look at this corroborating evidence as a whole so if we go to the  structure we were just speaking about where it says this approach towards demonstrating the t m concept was embodied in the c r c five five nine readouts on that read up design secondly on the left column it says our intent was to accomplish a rapid and mechanical demonstration of the t m concept so leaves the past tense twice then if we go back to the abstract of this i read document which is appendix two thirty eight there's a very important quote page two thirty eight last paragraph about four or five lines down without completing the hybridization structure the testing the hybridization testing could have been done and therefore the processing of the c r c readout could not have been technical reason lose method cannot be used to make devices for optical sensors not point in its stars ok it's a very technical reason ok so we're talking about two separate arguments here so the first had to do with the specific application of star  sensors which is an issue we're not appealing that is one aspect of the teaching only argument position that we are making the other aspect of this which is much more general than just simply star sensors is that two of the main objects of the six two of the six objects could not have been lou says ok you can't say these two applications won't work but doesn't otherwise teach away from use in a whole host of different applications doesn't that mean that essentially it's not really teaching the way it's just saying that it's less efficient well let's step back perhaps with respect to the hampering argument that may be true and we're not appealing that but with respect to the general objects of the invention and keep them i will leave you as about you is a but this was a real departure from that and that's why it's so important that two of these objects cannot be accomplished if you use a silicon because keep in mind that under the gordon case which is really what's controlling here if th is a textbook teaching a way and that's exactly what we have here these two objects apply to the entire in the entire patent but when you say inoperable i guess the argument on the other side is that it's not in operable for all purposes it's only specification and this law starting from the tronics med rather there's a legion of case of the say when you're looking at the plain meaning of the plain language you don't ignore the specification and prosecution history in this case the specification there are good reasons for that because when you look at the specification it helps you understand what the invention is and what its fundamental features are and if you look at what the fundamental features are here in column three the inventors talk about the fact that these fragile devices are passed back and forth as part of fabrication process they're very different very thin fragile and can easily be destroyed so when you put the second substrate on top that's how they solve that we permanently fix that to make sure that that's protected that's how they solve the problem sorry but so far lou early you you know order to agree with you i mean if there's one part of your argument that i can find a little bit difficult where it seems that you're divorcing teaching away from the question of motivation to combine but it really is that the former informs the latter right so they're not two different inquiries they're related concepts but why would using silicon so we're very different right but the whole point of teaching the way is to say that therefore even if it might otherwise look on its face like there would be a reason to combine it there wouldn't be a motivation to combine because of the teaching the way correct i mean the really the concepts i would and says no it supports your position ok do you agree with them that it does i would have to disagree with that your honor because keep in mind that there are a lot of moving parts in this case that we wanted to distill this down to make this is the simplest possible to the extent that we could hundred ninety invention disclosure and that white paper both of that would keep in mind that before there were two down below there were two issues that were just one of which was conception diligence and reduction of practice and then in this case just a pure reduction  practice what you are doing now is just an actual reduction those two put those two things that invention disclosure in the white paper were very supportive of the conception piece of that but with respect to the actual reduction of practice the i read is really where that's out so those are supporting documents for us but in terms of what we actually did they are that is where that is and that's why we limited the scope of the evidence we're relying  can't do that but this isn't a dispute about plain meaning on the one side and specification on the other so that's why cation supports sony's position first it doesn't say what raytheon i think wants it to say which is there's no express statement anywhere in the specification that the second substrate has to be part of the complete device but it does i mean when one of the actual claimed limitations is that it's a second substrate so do you say that just because if you were to use the word comprising under your theory you could use the word comprising and you could take away every aspect of the claimed invention that doesn't make any sense to me right in this is th second substrate the question is just more emotive disclose the second substrate being part of the complete device and there's actually a little bit of an ambiguity in that construction as to what the complete device is if it's brief did not explain how its construction would distinguish morimoto in the reply what they said was this is the bottom of page five quite simply more emotive fails to disclose the step of attaching the way for to the second morimoto it is part of the complete device but then it can be removed later and i think what this means is that raytheon's actual claim construction position is not that the second substrate is part of the complete in the final device in the final device your honor i don't it is true that you can see in body mints in the patent that and those four steps in the second substrate is there and i don't think there's a counter example to that but there are teachings in the patent that indicate the opposite and this is my thinking of column five lines thirty to thirty one where there's a teaching about the method of attachment and that the second substrate fiftieth can be attached with any appropriate technique and then the specification specification goes on to say that in one particular technique which gives a permanent attachment going to talks about the so you have this initial statement that any appropriate technique could be used and then there's one specific example that renders a permanent attachment meaning it couldn't be removed after that so mom the universe of techniques that one could use many of those are not going to be permanent functional arguments and engineering arguments if you will that you can't remove the second substrate because there wouldn't be enough can a call stability for the thin wafer and that's an argument that's only valid during the process of fabrication you can remove the second substrate as long as there is some sort of other support for the way for it and as a good example of this initially the support for the way for is the actual  finally waived any challenges to those two doctors credibility so your honor this is a course on the question of production of practice for the reference and i think the notion that sony didn't challenge the credibility of the raytheon witnesses and i thought if you're both the inventors and dr bachmann's testimony is a little bit mysterious to me because what sony did follow the board ultimately agreed to this is to say that the inventor is deposition testimony contradicts their original declaration testimony and also the nine hundred one document that raytheon is relying on this i read contradicts the inventor's original and then twenty transcripts pages later in the next page five ninety seven he says remember it's not a single device for all of this that contradicts his original declaration testimony and i'm not implying anything nefarious and i'm not sure how that contradicts i mean he said that we perform alternately performed all the steps here he's saying that we divided into various pieces and they were performed at various times the some of which constitute the reduction of practice but but he's not saying that that any of those practice tied to a specific chip with the c r c does it nation and what comes out in the deposition transcript is that that's not necessarily true but there are different steps being performed to make it different devices and those are being combined to construct a reduction in practice case and that lowered the credibility of the original declaration that claim that doesn't seem like an inconsistent statement to me at all i mean a choir singing just a court i wouldn't even let you use it to impeach because it's not inconsistent certainly the other didn't there there weren't follow up questions to getting the exactly the point you're trying to manage well certainly the original question i think on appendix page five seventy seven when i'm was whether or not he had verified that all steps of the claim were used to produce reduction to practice devised and the answer to that was no it was not necessarily any one device that showed all of these things in the board i think relied on that as a point which undermines the credibility of the original declarations but also in combination with what the nine hundred ninety one i read documents said and the one thousand nine hundred one i read document remember how to a specific date what is in the second paragraph of lou that silicon can hamper us or applications let's talk about the reason it doesn't matter this because the combination that was put forward was not modifying lou to achieve lose purpose was taking the artist in the art would have known of other applications that were appropriate for silicon based devices and would have used lose nothing to make those devices for those purposes and that's perfectly acceptable in the case you write that is the quote from k s r that we have in our brief where the supreme court said you can't just look at the prior art sato's purpose you can look at the technology in there and if there's motivation to do it of course you have to get that stuff this is motivation to do it or not as a matter of  tied to the purpose of a primary reference or even a secondary reference you just have to explain why a person ordinary skill would have had motivation to do what they did and the board did that on and expected to be one referring to specifically dr blanch faster easier to make the same paragraph hundred eighty seven and then lose itself at the end suggests that other semiconductors can be used for different kinds of applications so all of that taken together i think is central evidence for the board overall finding motivation to combine and objecting to sort of rejecting the original teaching away arguments that even we agree that raytheon made opiates in a cursory fashion in the patent a response which was simply based on this hampering language and second paragraph of hulu reference so overall the board in addressing that original teaching away argument adopted a motivation to combine that was not based on news purposes but was based on purposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known based on the dominant technology in the industry none of that is disputed by everything on appeal and this fact findings supported by evidence i think support boards judgement in this respect nelson like to correct i think mr melendez quotation of the oral argument transcript below where he talked about gate obs curation game jobs curation claims of some of the deep and acclaimed as well not disputed again by raytheon on appeal and that method has nothing to do with the particular semiconductor type that's used that's actually an advantage that one gets from using  in other semiconductor types including silicon so that's simply not correct to say that this purpose there is frustrated by the semiconductor type what's really driving that is the method steps of furnishing forming attaching matching as  does identically with the success rate and i think overall raytheon is simply arguing the wrong standard much heal the board made factual findings that are in the supported vice chancellor evidence including the record of the corroboration evidence that raytheon put forward itself in the bird cian issue and the record evidence of the form of the prior art and events are the declarations of the experts that were submitted by sony and the cross examination testimony and that's enough to sustain the board's judgment whether or not raytheon on appeal now believes that there is something actual issue which you should decide you know that's not the right developed and the parties for better had their option to give their or their arguments and we gave ours on at least two two or three occasions they were given the plain meaning and the board had an adequate record to make that decision so we calm five there's a distinction between the temporary support that is attached on top of the second substrate that protects it when the action process occurs on the bottom and that there were temporary is used twice in that context two important distinctions from our from our invention the first of which is that we're all about the back side processing you can't do brought back side processing in in the morning not a reference because it's kept and of course secondly there's the second substrate which of course we don't do because it's permanently affixed with respect to reduction of practice i would agree with you up with your honor about the any sort of contradiction there's no contradiction in this testimony i think these were intentionally generalized questions they were not focused on particular claims or particular claim limitations and that's important because all they really wanted was a sound bite of very general nature and i should also point out the fact that it's not inconsistent that there could be multiple devices that embody the claimed invention so i don't believe that there's any unchallenging that are testimony coupled with no responsive rebuttal by an expert they have no expert and then lastly with respect to that of teaching the way i would just summarized by saying that it's important to focus on what the legal reference