afternoon this afternoon we have three cases on for argument but we should be assured that we could read your briefs and from there you with your arguments should go directly to the points that you want to impress upon us for those who may not be familiar with our lighting system when your yellow light goes on you're beginning to consume your rebuttal time when it read li brief with this your brief i believe gives a very nice explanation of the toys technology so i think i understand what caused those but nowhere in either of these characteristics of the warning system when he goes to forty degrees flaps the airplane nose hey i'm going to lay i'm going to play they don't do that so much they don't do that and so i need a different way to tell the the land why does it need that have about if it's over flying the airport at five thousand c the distance between the aircraft and the airport is now a mile well that's well within the envelope of what is it twelve miles whatever the envelope is how does the how does the aircraft understand that it is not landing when it's within a mile of the airport but it's a five thousand feet it the case of course that in which the heading doesn't give you the information you need is a case in which you have for example a north south runway and a plane which is thirty miles to the west flying to the paragraph you're very familiar with on column six starting it line six and it talks about essentially the math of how we work through at the end of that i come out with a pretty high degree of confidence that alignment is not talking about the conventional notion of heading i e which direction a plane which is in a particular place may be pointing but rather what is the physical location of the plane now if that's true then it seems to me the only way you win this case is to say that the claim is about an embodiment that isn't discussed i understand where you are in this do you think that paragraph of this best of the cation describes alignment doesn't use the word heading nor the word very but do you think it is describing a line in terms of bearing ye again ok so so that your interpretation of the claim would say that claim language does not refer back to that embodiment and in and to the extent that the claim refers to what we conventionally call ahead  discussion by honeywell and again i know you're familiar with this page but i think it's a two seventy in which honeywell kind of bridges the last portion of the the gap which wasn't bridged in the spec and which specifically identifies the heading as being part of this arithmetic of actually i guess proving the metric calculation that's done which we've just determined bearing if that paragraph is all about bearing and the prosecution history is all about the trigonometry of that in terms of that passage in the same do it's like as in my hypothetical case the examiner and the applicant at least the lawyers for the applicant which is probably the problem the lawyers and the examiner would just not on the same page so if there there's no evidence at least to my eye this point that the lawyers acquiesced in an understanding of what heading meant that was contrary to the understanding that was the man still on page eight  seventy shortly before that what do we do if the examiner was assuming hitting that one thing and the prosecuting attorneys were assuming that heading was both understood to mean and was being problem from the one i i'm trying to describe when i'm trying to describe is it to a shoot in which as far as the patent is concerned and let's say hypothetically and i don't subscribe to this folly but but suppose that if a person were to walk in without any knowledge of the of the back and forth with the exam and so forth but just were to read the specification and were to read the statements made for example  into seventy that person would be completely convinced that the word heading was being used to mean bearing so as far as the extrinsic evidence up to that point was concerned unlike the examiner that person would be certain that this p answer one more question while you're standing before us at the moment and that is assuming we conclude that heading in claim one means heading in the conventional sense why how does that help you drongo i think i may have started out accusing mr pollack of having written the red brief and i apologize to both of you actually i found your read brief helpful on a couple of issues one of them is as i say the explanation of the cause system which was interesting and understandable curious that you never explain you you never really explained your own system but maybe thinking in terms of bearing this i think on mistake so right now if i may let me focus on what is causing me the biggest problem with your side of the case and that is if you look r presiding judge bryson's insightful question at the very end what do we do and the examiner has one thought in his head and the prosecuting attorney has has an entirely different we'll come back to that moment but here's why it seems to me clear that the examiner was thinking of something else because the examiner says on page one eighty in claim fourteen unclear how a runway is compared to a datum or how alignment with the runway is sent in response to that if you luck on page eight to forty two you'll see the response by the attorney who's trying to get this approved the attorney says claim fourteen has been this at the bottom of page two forty two claim fourteen has been rejected because the examiner believes it is unclear how runway is compared to a datum or how alignment with the runway is sent claim fourteen has been amended to delete datum and recites a source of signals representative of the relative angular position of a particular runway with respect underlined to the heading of the aircraft now if you do one further thing which i have done because you so nicely sub paragraph playing on in your three sub paragraph five of the of claim one and you substitute the trial judge's definition of a time that condition heading for the word heading in paragraphs of five this is what you get means responses to said first and second sources of signals for providing a signal representative of the alignment of the aircraft with the runway with the runway and now the insert and the angle formed by the line connecting the aircraft position and the airport and a reference data now in using her definition of heading she's put datum back in which is exactly what the examiner said you have to take out and secondly she's put in a definition that makes no sense because it says the alignment of the aircraft with the runway and of the angle formed by the line connecting the aircraft is ition and to the airport and three reference data but you can't have a line that that's described in that way that makes any sense at all because there's nothing that explains how you do that work and i think that's what the examiner was troubled by so it seems to me when the examiner said put in editing the examiner had a totally different concept eight this is the office action back in december i believe in which the examiner says in time twenty one determining means or said the pride aircraft alignment with respect to a runway based on runway heading and latitude and longitude data however it appears that in order to operate the means would also have to receive inputs from an aircraft heading sensing device claim twenty four i think it's a valid is in claim twenty since it never appeared anywhere in his written description but i think it is playing from the prosecution history that the examining prosecuting attorney and at least perfectly clear what this invasion was and am i correct i'm sorry but am i correct in concluding that the first time the word heading at least as pertains to this patent  directly shows up is on two forty two is the point at which the datum language has been objected to and the substitution is heading that was not i take it that that language and it was not an examiner suggestion was at that point i know he made the later suggestion but i i thought at this point i had the impression that when that first comp change was made to go from datum to  focused in who was it first initiated the use of the term heading that is does the prosecution histories indicate that the examiner said i don't know what you mean by the what you've got here and then was it the was it the the prosecuting attorney or whatever you want to call that person who came back and said oh what we mean is heading was that the sequence as you understand it or was it the examiner who came up with the word heading out i don't know a judge bryson if that's where you were reaching with your earlier flight but such that i thought that was the point really would count as the examiner suggesting in any way terms of use but there is a graphic that one eighty three debate which the examiner characterizes as referencing runway course from the beginning which is the position so was a mistake excepted to the extent that you're relying on remarks made by him and requirements imposed by the examiner prior to the later statement such as the one on to seventy and that would include  discussed and one comes to the conclusion at the end that they're really talking about there even though the using the term suppose that in place of that aired in one simple sentence which said so far there's been some confusion about our use of the term we are using the term heading to mean what is conventionally known as terry period would you would you be satisfied that that would solve the problem of this case and that put harshly you would loose well y talking about but the the spec does seem does it not to give us more guidance as to an alignment and it means that it does what headings because we do have a line use and we have it at the end of there's