in the legislative history or in the statute itself because a trial never should have been instituted and the final written decision should be vacated  don't even know where our door right yes so if that were the case how did they get this nation's wealth because they improperly opened the door conducted a trial in during the course of the trial but there was the attorneys and the parties before the court are subject to regulation by a court even though subject matter jurisdiction may not even exist the court still has the power to enforce sanctions against the sand  suggesting you raise the possibility of being sent back and then coming back up your let the determination of the propriety of the yorks whatever just you think that's a possibility the complete such that the statute should not apply but there are a number of reasons why that is wrong first of all the statute is clear and unambiguous there are a number of federal circuit and supreme court cases that say the government agency to make a sort of policy determination as to what to do with this alleged gap because that's congress job and to think there's again not when you have to say that because the gap is what led chevron to make the play well this is just stuff especially deals with the jurisdiction of the board in the first instance and we're what we're talking about here is the board creating a ruling that you know fact expands its own jurisdiction that's  roof or has to be strictly complied with it's been complied with in this case there is no legitimate argument that is completely served and it was a complaint so i'm happy we're ok i know you're dealing with a hypothetical and i don't know how far we could carry that because we have the proper leaser well it was our job is to explore the parameters and i understand you're putting me real clearly we're going to hear from the other side when they get up about the fact that there is pillar for example or let me put it this way the case law that the board relied on had nothing to do with going back in time these cases essentially are polling cases or saving statute cases that don't adjust your attempt to adjust the initial trigger the start of the statute of limitations  in back for example mr back got an adverse ruling from his his union and that under federal law triggered a six month statute of limitations to file a complaint he timely filed a statute of complaint you know he filed his complaint in federal court and long away he dismissed it and then later attempted to file after the six month period of rot he argued that the illinois federal statute of limitations and it's our policy not to import saving statutes from the state so you found out a time and that's more or less what happened here in the first i p r filed by atlanta guess they filed  occurred more than a year after service of the complaint just like in back the statute ran but the board says no we're going to rely on cases that deal with polling let's say to go back in year after the complaint had been served so under atlanta guesses theory we jump in at this after four years you can now come in and say well that you never started a run i'm going to go again that doesn't seem fair to penetrate so i think it cuts both ways the congress thought about this were things i mean right in the text of three fifteen beat is an exception exception being in a case of join this is the statute of limitations doesn't apply now the fact that congress provided for a single exception within the statute itself implies that there were no other exceptions that are possible obviously waiting on this court to decide the sanctions issue the board could have decided the amount of sanctions a year ago and it's pretty clearly waiting and this court so with the board weighed in on this court you know the parties serving up for this court i think it is important  consideration of the nine instituting ground claim destruction of valve means because those are efforts to import the internally relieved limitation front of their party product product manual now full means dozens i don't think  because they don't again this is the issue with the high pressure gas but there's there's no separate you know how to delineation of high pressure all of these systems take you know high pressure and low pressure or pressure out that's the nature of it the rights are legally unaffected by anything that happened during the suit was dismissed without prejudice and as applied here which makes that principle especially important here because if you have a scenario where a plan to file suit  prejudice a year goes by the plaintiff files then the then but for this very important legal principle the defendant's rights are prejudiced by the plaintiff's litigation decisions for selling a specific that was dismissed without prejudice instance well the reason the reason is that when congress is prison is not one the specific question here is just something that's not specifically dealt with in the statute and therefore when you have a term  where else it would it would apply that doesn't indicate that congress was even thinking about this question and more but it's not the congress was thinking about it which i'm sure it wasn't maybe it was thinking well we have a vacuum law for this situation so we don't need to address it or just something else that doesn't but the whole point where for direct infringement of the statute says whoever for it is enough that isn't it is libelous well settled and frenzy about that means performing all the stops but this court looks to settle back from rules of attribution in order to determine that well you don't that i have it at least two situations where there is a background presumption that goes contrary to atlanta gas disposition this court is a court of appeal from the court of claims jurisdiction you just twenty u s c fifteen hundred which presents an election that is similar to the election in section three fifteen it's a binding election that occurs up front and if you go in a district court you lose the right to go exceptions to go beyond the statute to permit that binding election to be withdrawn even in cases of we're subject matter jurisdiction didn't exist in the district court so that's that's background law relative to th it says that commencement of an action starts a one year period of limitation for removal unless the plaintiff engaged in bad faith so their congress had a similar statute that was triggered in the same way but it provided an exception so the fact that with his background exception for removal that they then do not provide an exception if you have an answer to my question about which plank instructions matter in actually determining the outcome of the  i well our position was that properly construed the since the patent has expired since there are ambiguities the patent office pursuant to case is supposed to resolve those ambiguity is in the favor of the patentee if the specification provide support for the resolution and so we one for example would be meeting of the regulator just regular the board said regular could be any gas regulator but there are a number of different types of gas regulators in the one disclosed in the patent  only one type it's an internally relieved regulator and that is consistent with the description in the patent of passing gas through the gap between the baffle in the skirt because internally relieved regulators are the kind that relieve over because we're not supposed to be looking at claim constructions that are determinative of the p tabs decision the law and with respect i think the case should be the board never question is why do you resume the we just ignore the oh you mean like for example that the claim that involved the material from which the event protected was made sure if it cherry that would be a good example yes pan the board used hindsight analysis to to pick him reference just pulled it out of the air it turns out that the expert for atlanta gas made no analysis as to whether that material would actually be useful let alone the the board never made a finding answers to what i have seen improper finding as to when one skilled in the art would have been motivated