Giorg Talk Q. Mr. Trump. F. Tannin dynamics – mar içindes oral rigeusch – t.o. Looks like a complaint, that's where we figure out if there's an error or not, and you're missing it out. I mean, I just don't see how when you're missing an amount, it can't be an error. No, no. The second supports other than the, what? You're on it, I'm going to read it out. The other being oriented and that doesn't make sense. There are a number of ways to look at this. First of all, there's no question that this is less than ideal under bank or ex on that entire line of cases. And I think the point here is there are really three avenues to look at this. Number one is, is this claim a medical construction? How difficult that may be, which is bank or an ex on. Number two is, is this claim insolubely and vigorous, and therefore indefinitely, which is the data buys and the Allen engineering cases that they've cited, which do not talk about it in the context of the mistake. The third, which I think you're getting to, as more is the state cases, where a patentee comes in, and you see in those cases, the patentee says, there's a mistake in my patent and I'd like the court to fix it. That's not what's my under. We do not believe this is a mistake. It's all ordered out. But it's taking a nap at home
. How? But do you agree that under the case is you cited, if there's more than one potential or reasonable interpretation of this, what you said less than ideal by a rich, then you don't make the benefit of that. Well, that would be the state cases where someone is committed, in the case that I've lived with your friends who just pros, no, for example, are microsatagy and others, the patentee has committed and agreed that there are multiple different ways to read that claim and correct it. We don't think that's the case there. What if we conclude that there's more than one way to clear and move this claim than do we really use it? If your owner can look at this claim and thinks there are two equally different constructions for those corrections, is it sometimes phrased? And can't one stand it? That's how it's insolently ambiguous as a standard here, that you're unable to construe this claim. Because there are two reasonable applications at least two different musicals. Well, I don't think it's just that there are two reasonable ways to read it because the claim destruction case, for example, acts on a bank or say, that it doesn't, you know, reasonable people can disagree about the meaning of a claim. So, what's happening here? What's happening here, for example, is every time we try to describe our claim destruction, they're going to have a board with five different options on it. And they're saying, every time we open our mouths, they're going to try and cut and paste it into the claim. Now, as your owner is a well-eaten person, but these are all these cases, that's not on the other side. There's no clear and unmistakable sort of error in the claim. I agree. I'm not saying every musical case, before it was just due claim destruction. And the way they, if there weren't two reasonable sides, we wouldn't have such a higher and more so right. So, I'd seems to me that the nobo cases in judge-prose continuum questions isn't the standard reasonable. Whether or not the correction is subject to reasonable debate is because, as you can see, this panel is focusing on the notion that you're missing out. And so, we can't just overlook that. Your honor, I'm sitting. No, it isn't the standard under nobo. Once we determine that there's something missing here, there's an error, claiming the first two. It's dependent on claim 35, where there's no claim 35
. Well, there's no down here that tells us what the other is. Well, first of all, again, if this does go under nobo, then you're talking about the nobo standard. I know it dispute with the nobo standard is either there have been a number of cases cited southwest software, where there's an appendix missing, if I'm referring to, where there was a dependent claim which referred to an unexistent claim. I believe that was offer. Group one, we're 24 words were missing. But in those cases, the patterns and words missing here, I mean, not necessarily. The prosecution mystery, it seems clear that you all intended to put some other language in it, just didn't. Well, your honor was happening. A lot of people here are getting trying to get into the mind of the inventor. Okay, and they're taking three words in isolation from the entire claim. Based on the mind of the inventor of the realm and test here? I agree, it's not. I'm saying that's what's happening here is the defendants are trying to get into the mind of the inventor and saying this is a mistake. Now, this language, I agree. It's less than ideal. It's awkward. But, you're honor, the thing is, the examiner is saying this is no. You're intentionally broke with this. I mean, it's not clearly missing something. Well, again, actually getting into the mind of the inventor, whether the inventor attended this claim. Well, you don't just your claim, according to my inventor
. You're a reasonably skilled artist, and I'm not saying you are, but it's as close as you are. But you do look at this claim. You don't think immediately, uh, scratch your head. What are they talking about? There's a word missing, or there's some extra words that aren't extracted. You don't think that. I may scratch my head and say this is awkward, but I believe it can be extruded, and that the inventor should not be deprived of the benefit of the invention. And let me point out, you're honor, that this claim issued in 1998. It was seven and a half years before anyone said there was an error. You're being too... Yeah, but could you assert it? Well, first of all, a very good point. I think you assert it against these things. Yeah, and as a matter of fact, the record shows that in 2003 to summer 2003, they started looking at this claim to figure out how to design the record. The lawsuit was filed in February of 2004, seven months later, and it wasn't until July 2005 that they raised the state. So they knew about this for two years. They were in legation for a year and a half, and did not say there was a mistake in this claim. So, talk about it. Well, we were not suggesting that it's far, right? Because that could have been a matter of strategy, right? They could have known all along the state, and just revealed that to you at the right time. And you don't believe against typically in the course of litigation
. You should. That's your best arguments, and only revealed in the last minute for strategic purposes. I wrote that position, or in this case, that would be kind of odd, because what they did here, we moved for preliminary injunction. They did not oppose our preliminary injunction by saying you don't have a likelihood of success. I'm not saying waiver, but I'm saying that for purposes of the definiteness, they spent two years looking at this claim. People of ordinary steel-de-art, as well as their lawyers, as they were looking to, for example, to contract with who to create their ribbons for sale. They talked to a number of people, the records showed, in depositions, for example. And they did not come back and say, gosh, our position is that this is indefinite. As a matter of fact, they took their 81733G ribbon off the market. And as I believe it's 856, the judge refers to this in his order. They agreed to a preliminary injunction on that ribbon. So, they were able to read this claim for the first year and a half of litigation to the point of saying, gosh, we better take our ribbon off the market. I don't think that we can extrapolate from those actions as to what they were thinking. Perhaps they were thinking we can sell those case, maybe go away cheaply. I mean, there's a million possible scenarios in the United States that you're here to come up with. And I'm having trouble using the fact that they didn't introduce the target to you at a sooner point as the basis of the pudding, where you went to, below, didn't you introduce to the district court or your client to separate potential construction? One of which removed the word is other than one of which was added the word's first support. And that's sort of identically what you proposed below that there are either two ways to read this. They both, according to, result in the same general construction, but one involved, and essentially putting words in, one involved in the substitute case, and that's not quite correct, John. We did not ask the word the court to add or subtract words from the claim. What happened was, first of all, the claim construction proceedings here were short-circuited, because they filed at that point their motion for summary judgment on indefinite
. So what it became instead of claim construction was an indefinite argument on their motion. And what we had proposed for purposes of claim construction was, and I read from A183, which is one of our oppositions to their motion for summary judgment, we said, fargo suggests that the phrase can be construed as the support other than the first support, or perhaps even more simply the second support. So we were discussing in our brief the claim constructions, and what they did, as they're going to do here today, is they came in with a board, and they said, well, that means we're going to paste these words here, delete these words there to present to the court, or our version of your claim construction as a correction. We don't agree with that. Unfortunately, the court did agree with that below, and said the claim was indefinite, and wrote in their opinion that what we're talking about is adding or deleting words. We don't believe that. We've never taken that position. We don't want to do that. But, apparently, you're saying this what your argument is, because the argument that I haven't seen anywhere is in any of your documents, is that when you read the claim in light of dispecification, it's crystal clear what it covers. We're talking about it. We're saying that the claim is clear on its face, and you don't have to read in light of dispecification. That means that's what I've read from your Greece, and I wonder about that. Is that an accurate representation of your position on this appeal? No, that's not our position. And what I would hope is from across our Greece would be that we want a full proper claim construction here with the claim read in light of dispecification and also across fusion history. In that respect, for example, starting with what the inventor actually said to the PTO, when they made this amendment, the inventor said, quote, I'm going to read a different position for different rivers. Figure six of the pattern, which we would like to point to look at as well, shows, and that's a page A89. Figure six shows what the home position is. It's numbered 73. That's two pens in it. I agree with that
. And that I would have thought a little bit of a director approach, but again, reading the briefs, seems to me, saying that the claim is clear. I don't know about the dispecification. Absolutely not, but that was not our intention. Our intention is to look at this as a full of proper claim construction argument. Unfortunately, one of the things we're sounding with in the brief is dealing with the mistake position that the district court took below and that they're taking here today. But no, we think that displaying it. Let's just say that it looks to me like a mistake. Let's just say it looks to me that there is something or other missing. I don't know what the correct means of the cycle back to the specific issue. One cycle back to the specific issue I know it means is only one possible meaning the one that you're proposing. However, on its face, it's very hard to say that the claim is clear. I know it's said so many times, but there is a problem, of course, about the decision, the trial court, as well. I'm trying to focus on how music can get around. I think it's going to get around problem. First of all, and to go to Judge Morris Point, this, and what you're saying is, you're going unquestionably this is awkward language. Other than the being, it's an awkward way to phrase things. But, for example, I would concede that, Your Honor. But, to go to Judge Morris Point, there isn't necessarily an award miss. For example, being to be understood as an hour. I mean, somehow people have been reading this plan for 10 years
. It's a help of the invention. Is it a great specification? Which is how? What I'm thinking through, our award, is how much is going to really represent and reflect what was fairly intended by getting better, when there is, in my life, a stake in the prosecution, which would be kind of common. By the way, what we're saying on grief and pages 26 and 27 is that even if you view it as a stake, it comes to the same claim scope by correcting that mistake, although that's not what we're seeking. We did point out in our briefs what the key parts of the prosecution history were, for example, what I read when they amended plain 11. Also, we pointed out figures 6, which I think makes this abundantly clear. So, our argument is... Well, I think you're about to run... I was simply going to say that I think that what the court should do, what we asked the court to do, is exactly what we presume we got the other side of the end in 2003, when they were trying to design around this, which is look at the claim, then look at the specification as one of what we still need. Art Phillips, Markman, Vitonics is expected to do, read the claim and light of the specification, and then also, again, his Phillips and Strux, look at the prosecution history, which makes it very Twitter with the inventor intended as he was amending this claim. I think even though the wording came out through the court... I'm sorry, I took quite a while. But they say that it's not so clear from the spec and the prosecution history, and they focus in on the plurality of supports. So, if you wouldn't mind, that seems to be a critical juxtaposition in this case addressing and focusing on that, and in particular telling me why there are arguments that there are multiple reasonable constructions as you can add. Tell me what's wrong with their proposed constructions, which would result in a different scope
. Sure, and the other thing I could do is with my revolt time, if I'm allowed to have some as I can respond to what they're going to go through as those, I mean I'm happy to do that now, but I'm sure they're going to go through that and I can respond. I'm trying to take some time to answer the question. First of all, their exhibit, if they're going to show you, has five constructions on it. The first day they proposed to lead another event, and so it says that the second support is being oriented in no positions relative to the home position. That is exactly what the claim talks about because it talks about, first identifier and condition comprising, and then that includes a first support. So that's the home position. We also know from column five, the specification online, 28 to 30, that the home position is actually two boards, so that comprising allows for a second board in the home position, which is in figure six, number 73, you can see it's shaded there, there are three boards filled in. That's to start encoding, it needs that to create the magnetic effect. Then as you have the other positions relative to the home position, that's covered really the first three of their constructions, all say with different words, the same thing. You have the home position, and then you have all the other positions who reference to the home position. So there's second construction, for example, with support, other than the first support being oriented at no positions relative to the home position. That is, they're talking about the second support, which are all the additional supports 75 to 81. Again, that's exactly what we've said. There are no positions around the sub-unfans. But council in the claim, it says comprising, first support and rallying, second support. That clearly gives the idea that there could be a third or a fourth set of supports, otherwise you wouldn't use the surprise. If someone came in and said, gosh, we're going to call the fourth sector, the third support. That doesn't, we would agree. That's all within the scope of what the applicant said, for example, to the PTO. Additional supports, all the way around the wheel
. So it's not so critical that you call the second third or fourth support. There's the home position, everything else with reference to the home position, and at least, as you can see in 77B and 79B, there's at least one other pin to complete the encoding and the magnetic effect. So these wordings, and I would add that their number four, number five, number five, for example, is just... You add this first and second language into this point. It's nowhere in this spectrum. All it did is make a mess. I agree. I think it makes a mess. It would be a lot easier if we just got in a check pit. We followed the law so we got to check when we went home, but as we know, that's really how it works. But we believe that the inventor had a legitimate invention here. He shouldn't be deprived of the value of his invention because this awkward word. So if I may, I'd like to reserve whatever time I can get for the funnel. Thank you, sir. That's a warning. I'm going to show board. Thank you, Your Honor. It's a nice place to court
. If you wouldn't mind when you write to the heart of my third and last question, you'd be in trouble. Yes. So that's not too inconvenient. But, it's hard to assert that no matter what you do, you're not going to be able to do it. How do we correct this claim? It always leads to a reasonable construction that the opposite of law is not in a position, but all at free-determined points with reference to the home position. And that's something that you take issue with and how do you explain to me why? Well, there's a couple of reasons why. First of all, let's keep in mind that in the noble case, in the case of none of those cases, that ask the question of whether the multiple possible corrections have a different claim solver. That's not the issue under no-bow in the case of the follow-up. All no-bow is looked to be, are there more than one reasonable way to correct a error in plain language? That's what I was saying. No, the case is that it doesn't devolve into a determination of whether there's corrections that result in different claims to it, because no-bow is the skin of cat that has still dead in it, and it's got the skin. So I think clearly no-bow is getting at it and our press conference for the notion that you want to determine if there's reasonable debate, because the only reason that people care about the words of the remember is determine the scope. And then that's certainly reasonable. So what do you get to the heart of why these possible corrections have different scope? That's the issue under no-bow. Now, I do have the five possible corrections here, and in fact all of those results in different scope start with the first one. When we use figure six, do you see figure six when you're up and down to that? Here's a whole position that they talk about, you know, for a moment. And then they point out, for a moment, there are two things. The claim only requires one support with one magnetic material, so a claim or a flyer is up in here. This first correction would then require two second supports, time-sets plurality or second supports, that are oriented in all positions, well, out into the home positions. So it would require two pins somewhere out here, could be two, could be four, could be a hundred, but at least two out here. But to compare it then, for example, this one, it kind of goes to your point. Suppose you get a curvature of the hole right there, you can see it, I'll put it up there. On this claim interpretation, that language would still be that, because this doesn't have to be called a seventh support. This would just be a random support, you know, put there for no apparent reason, or perhaps to avoid claim language. But it would still be covered by that. If we go to another possible correction of three, it requires essentially that all supports, other than the ones in the home position, have to be oriented in no positions relative to the home position. So an arbitrary or a replaced hole right there would avoid that claim language. Why do we generally designate the name of those things as something other than second supports? Why isn't specification clear that, look, every time you're in the home position is relative to the home position. Well, that's a very interesting point, because if you look at the specification, one of the things you see is that some of these supports are never filled with holes. The specification explained that the trailing score in each sector, the deeds, can never be filled with pins. And the bottom line is, if you're never going to fill that hole with pins, why doesn't it have to be located at that very exact, you know, oriented in the home position? You can move these wherever you want. So, I'm curious, why you haven't moved all of them? I agree, Geron, it's difficult to tell from the specification why they asked for holes that are never filled. The best thing is that I think I can give is the spec mentioned in a couple of times that this also serves a visual identification purpose. That by having a uniform collection of holes all the way around, it's easier for somebody to look and see, I know this is a type of whatever, because I can see it in here and there. But, you know, it's really not my job of explaining why the specification has the sort of odd, we have holes that are never used, certainly that's what it says. So, there's certainly isn't unreasonable suggestions, you might put a hole right there that would have no purpose, you covered this direction and not over this. These others though, they've come even more different, because we jump back up a second one. Again, this is one that... Right, just arbitrarily placed wherever, frankly serving no purpose
. Suppose you get a curvature of the hole right there, you can see it, I'll put it up there. On this claim interpretation, that language would still be that, because this doesn't have to be called a seventh support. This would just be a random support, you know, put there for no apparent reason, or perhaps to avoid claim language. But it would still be covered by that. If we go to another possible correction of three, it requires essentially that all supports, other than the ones in the home position, have to be oriented in no positions relative to the home position. So an arbitrary or a replaced hole right there would avoid that claim language. Why do we generally designate the name of those things as something other than second supports? Why isn't specification clear that, look, every time you're in the home position is relative to the home position. Well, that's a very interesting point, because if you look at the specification, one of the things you see is that some of these supports are never filled with holes. The specification explained that the trailing score in each sector, the deeds, can never be filled with pins. And the bottom line is, if you're never going to fill that hole with pins, why doesn't it have to be located at that very exact, you know, oriented in the home position? You can move these wherever you want. So, I'm curious, why you haven't moved all of them? I agree, Geron, it's difficult to tell from the specification why they asked for holes that are never filled. The best thing is that I think I can give is the spec mentioned in a couple of times that this also serves a visual identification purpose. That by having a uniform collection of holes all the way around, it's easier for somebody to look and see, I know this is a type of whatever, because I can see it in here and there. But, you know, it's really not my job of explaining why the specification has the sort of odd, we have holes that are never used, certainly that's what it says. So, there's certainly isn't unreasonable suggestions, you might put a hole right there that would have no purpose, you covered this direction and not over this. These others though, they've come even more different, because we jump back up a second one. Again, this is one that... Right, just arbitrarily placed wherever, frankly serving no purpose. Now, that reminds me of the address of one of the points they make in the brief, which is that, well, if we had just arbitrarily placed here and put pin there, it would throw off the way this achievement would work, which is no evidence to support that, and it seems unlikely, but it leads you back to the point they made before, which is that, well, talking about holes, and holes not going to throw the machine off, it's only to get maybe to put pin there, and this fact talks about the possibility of holes that are never filled. Now, let me then go back to this second one. You can just think about this, again, this is one that was proposed by Fargo in the District Court. Council may be correct, they did not call this a correction, it's consistently called that construction, but I think we're beyond that, because that's the whole point is when you have a Romanian's plain language, you're not any longer a construing plain language. Where is this in our... Do we have this... This is the same numbering system that is used in our brief. Is it in the red brief? No, it's in the red brief, and what you will see is they are civil-states, invented, and numbered, but they're spaced on different pages. They have this page through probably five pages of a brief, you get through 1034, we actually have three variations, five A to five C. Now, this second one, the interesting thing about this one is that it basically says it supports other than the first support, singular, being oriented on positions. That means that at the end of the day, that you can only have one support in the whole position, because you all other supports are oriented relative in the whole position. So that direction would conclude the possibility of a second support in the whole position. As I expected, Council would be quick to point out that would mean a explain would even cover the preferred environment, and certainly, the case law of this court says that a construction that excludes a preferred environment is rarely, if ever correct, but it doesn't say it's never possible, and let's keep in mind that this is a correction that they propose. The fourth one here is one that the district court specifically relied on in its decision, and it's basically never to describe what could be a category of second support that might not want to be oriented up at a normal position, or what could be the home position. And this one basically acknowledges the possibility that the second support here in the home position could be called a second support, you could have a second support in the whole position. You have to be able to tell the names again where there is a very interesting in the extra, but also the title to the specification, because if, in fact, some of those five are not supported in the specification, how can we consider them as viable genitals
. Now, that reminds me of the address of one of the points they make in the brief, which is that, well, if we had just arbitrarily placed here and put pin there, it would throw off the way this achievement would work, which is no evidence to support that, and it seems unlikely, but it leads you back to the point they made before, which is that, well, talking about holes, and holes not going to throw the machine off, it's only to get maybe to put pin there, and this fact talks about the possibility of holes that are never filled. Now, let me then go back to this second one. You can just think about this, again, this is one that was proposed by Fargo in the District Court. Council may be correct, they did not call this a correction, it's consistently called that construction, but I think we're beyond that, because that's the whole point is when you have a Romanian's plain language, you're not any longer a construing plain language. Where is this in our... Do we have this... This is the same numbering system that is used in our brief. Is it in the red brief? No, it's in the red brief, and what you will see is they are civil-states, invented, and numbered, but they're spaced on different pages. They have this page through probably five pages of a brief, you get through 1034, we actually have three variations, five A to five C. Now, this second one, the interesting thing about this one is that it basically says it supports other than the first support, singular, being oriented on positions. That means that at the end of the day, that you can only have one support in the whole position, because you all other supports are oriented relative in the whole position. So that direction would conclude the possibility of a second support in the whole position. As I expected, Council would be quick to point out that would mean a explain would even cover the preferred environment, and certainly, the case law of this court says that a construction that excludes a preferred environment is rarely, if ever correct, but it doesn't say it's never possible, and let's keep in mind that this is a correction that they propose. The fourth one here is one that the district court specifically relied on in its decision, and it's basically never to describe what could be a category of second support that might not want to be oriented up at a normal position, or what could be the home position. And this one basically acknowledges the possibility that the second support here in the home position could be called a second support, you could have a second support in the whole position. You have to be able to tell the names again where there is a very interesting in the extra, but also the title to the specification, because if, in fact, some of those five are not supported in the specification, how can we consider them as viable genitals. I believe your honor that all of them are consistent with the specifications. That was a bad idea. That is why I have a lot of requirements, and it says you don't do the specification to see what the invention is, to construe the claimants, where they are sitting, fill up, said, and say, trace primary source of knowledge in understanding what the invention is. That goes to the fundamental question of what is the difference between claim construction and claim correction. No, it comes to what understanding, in fact, what the pattern is about, and where the resolution of these differences or points of dispute that are raised, how they should be resolved. What this court's president says, though, is that at the end of the day, claim construction is about construing the actual words of the claim. It is really not about trying to figure out at least an answer. We all come to work through great lengths, in fact, to say, no, you must work with the claims, you light up the invention. It is described in the specification. We never say that it is removed from the relationships to the specification that is part of it. We always need to look to the specification, but what we look to the specification to do is to figure out what the claim invention means. We always have to go back to the claim invention. In this instance, we are going back and trying to figure out what has been claimed, which is this non-sensitant. That's all I ask. Where is the specification supposed? The alternative is that you can tell us on perfectly clear. The specification would be perfectly consistent and would support this construction, because it would enable a situation where all the second supports would be oriented in no position. The specification is consistent with that, because it shows multiple second supports oriented in no position, rather than the whole position. It would support a construction where if somebody arbitrary or replace a hole here, it would still be covered by the claims. That is the specification would support the claim that wouldn't want to be avoided simply because there was a hole like this there. But the specification would be arbitrary holes, which of your five or is the designated one? This one would still cover the claim invention that arbitrary holes
. I believe your honor that all of them are consistent with the specifications. That was a bad idea. That is why I have a lot of requirements, and it says you don't do the specification to see what the invention is, to construe the claimants, where they are sitting, fill up, said, and say, trace primary source of knowledge in understanding what the invention is. That goes to the fundamental question of what is the difference between claim construction and claim correction. No, it comes to what understanding, in fact, what the pattern is about, and where the resolution of these differences or points of dispute that are raised, how they should be resolved. What this court's president says, though, is that at the end of the day, claim construction is about construing the actual words of the claim. It is really not about trying to figure out at least an answer. We all come to work through great lengths, in fact, to say, no, you must work with the claims, you light up the invention. It is described in the specification. We never say that it is removed from the relationships to the specification that is part of it. We always need to look to the specification, but what we look to the specification to do is to figure out what the claim invention means. We always have to go back to the claim invention. In this instance, we are going back and trying to figure out what has been claimed, which is this non-sensitant. That's all I ask. Where is the specification supposed? The alternative is that you can tell us on perfectly clear. The specification would be perfectly consistent and would support this construction, because it would enable a situation where all the second supports would be oriented in no position. The specification is consistent with that, because it shows multiple second supports oriented in no position, rather than the whole position. It would support a construction where if somebody arbitrary or replace a hole here, it would still be covered by the claims. That is the specification would support the claim that wouldn't want to be avoided simply because there was a hole like this there. But the specification would be arbitrary holes, which of your five or is the designated one? This one would still cover the claim invention that arbitrary holes. I believe this one, frankly, wouldn't too. It would not allow a second one in the whole position. This one would mean that every support outside the home position has to be oriented in no position. If you have a hole here, it would be outside the claim, which is still consistent with the specification, but it would be outside the scope of the claim. This one, let me think about this for a minute. One of the two is still allowing the second supports. You could still place one there, and you could say it's a third support, a fourth support, just an half-minute second support. I think the same would then be true for the last one. That's the difference between this one and all the others. Judd, you know what, I'm not sure I fully answered your question yet. In trying to understand, I had no trouble with the concept of this claim, the seriousness of the flaw. The question is, it also seems to me that it's very clear what you read the specification, what is covered by the claim. Nonetheless, the claim is flawed on its face, so if you don't read the specification, I do not understand. However, somewhere there needs to be a little bit of tolerance, as to how much is hard to say, and it would have to be on the case by case. There's only a little bit right under your sand, in this case, how much tolerance is to be fair, to be fair all the sides, but this is required, and that's why I had randomly take an extreme position. So, if there was a more extreme than others, and say, well, you could stretch it to cover this. Really just to try and understand how it should do yourself. I think the best answer I can give to that is that if it's clear in this case that they weren't trying with the claims to just claim exactly what was in the firm binding. As most attendees do, they were trying to explain, but come or more with their claims, and specifically what they disclose. So, going to the specification really at the end of the day, only tells us what exactly was their preferred binding
. I believe this one, frankly, wouldn't too. It would not allow a second one in the whole position. This one would mean that every support outside the home position has to be oriented in no position. If you have a hole here, it would be outside the claim, which is still consistent with the specification, but it would be outside the scope of the claim. This one, let me think about this for a minute. One of the two is still allowing the second supports. You could still place one there, and you could say it's a third support, a fourth support, just an half-minute second support. I think the same would then be true for the last one. That's the difference between this one and all the others. Judd, you know what, I'm not sure I fully answered your question yet. In trying to understand, I had no trouble with the concept of this claim, the seriousness of the flaw. The question is, it also seems to me that it's very clear what you read the specification, what is covered by the claim. Nonetheless, the claim is flawed on its face, so if you don't read the specification, I do not understand. However, somewhere there needs to be a little bit of tolerance, as to how much is hard to say, and it would have to be on the case by case. There's only a little bit right under your sand, in this case, how much tolerance is to be fair, to be fair all the sides, but this is required, and that's why I had randomly take an extreme position. So, if there was a more extreme than others, and say, well, you could stretch it to cover this. Really just to try and understand how it should do yourself. I think the best answer I can give to that is that if it's clear in this case that they weren't trying with the claims to just claim exactly what was in the firm binding. As most attendees do, they were trying to explain, but come or more with their claims, and specifically what they disclose. So, going to the specification really at the end of the day, only tells us what exactly was their preferred binding. Not that much. That's what made it difficult for me to answer to exactly what they were talking about, but doesn't. But you're saying this fact also doesn't necessarily lead us to the inclusion that all the goals, other than the ones that own the position, have to be relative to the home position, that's the one difficult to have having with your position. You want to stick these varying goals in the middle, and it seems to me that the, well, the specification might allow for that, because the patient doesn't support the notion that that is the infection. But maybe that's the key point, is that it allows it. A reasonable patent director is they were trying to draft a claim that could not be easily avoided. Certainly, they wanted to cover what they believed their invention was, but it's reasonable to believe they weren't trying to draft this claim so that it could be easily avoided by somebody putting a random poll in it. So it's reasonable to assume that the claim was drafted to not require all supports to be located or oriented at no positions relative to the home positions. The other point on that earlier on is these claim interpretations that leave open the possibility that it's the second support that provides the second pin for the home position. That clearly is the preferred environment, is to have two pins in the home position. Again, this correction has nothing to do with arbitrarily placing pins here and here. This is one that provides for the opportunity to have a second support in the, another support that is a second support in the home position. And the interesting thing about that, is this correction, since the claim requires a plurality of second support. If this one here is a second support, then the claim would only require one more hole outside the home position. So this correction would read down a three hole in value, one, two, three. What I hear here, interpretation means a little contorted to me. It doesn't seem to be very natural, or even reasonable, and it seems to me that they say the first support couldn't encapsulate both of those two pins in the home position. In fact, shouldn't it? In fact, isn't that what would be generally consistent with the first six, and all of the disclosure and all of the discussion in the spec? It doesn't seem to me that your proposed construction is at all even reasonable in light of this spec, and that's what you're losing being here. The word support, I think throughout this case, has been recognized as being a single hole. I don't think they've ever suggested that a support could be multiple holes
. Not that much. That's what made it difficult for me to answer to exactly what they were talking about, but doesn't. But you're saying this fact also doesn't necessarily lead us to the inclusion that all the goals, other than the ones that own the position, have to be relative to the home position, that's the one difficult to have having with your position. You want to stick these varying goals in the middle, and it seems to me that the, well, the specification might allow for that, because the patient doesn't support the notion that that is the infection. But maybe that's the key point, is that it allows it. A reasonable patent director is they were trying to draft a claim that could not be easily avoided. Certainly, they wanted to cover what they believed their invention was, but it's reasonable to believe they weren't trying to draft this claim so that it could be easily avoided by somebody putting a random poll in it. So it's reasonable to assume that the claim was drafted to not require all supports to be located or oriented at no positions relative to the home positions. The other point on that earlier on is these claim interpretations that leave open the possibility that it's the second support that provides the second pin for the home position. That clearly is the preferred environment, is to have two pins in the home position. Again, this correction has nothing to do with arbitrarily placing pins here and here. This is one that provides for the opportunity to have a second support in the, another support that is a second support in the home position. And the interesting thing about that, is this correction, since the claim requires a plurality of second support. If this one here is a second support, then the claim would only require one more hole outside the home position. So this correction would read down a three hole in value, one, two, three. What I hear here, interpretation means a little contorted to me. It doesn't seem to be very natural, or even reasonable, and it seems to me that they say the first support couldn't encapsulate both of those two pins in the home position. In fact, shouldn't it? In fact, isn't that what would be generally consistent with the first six, and all of the disclosure and all of the discussion in the spec? It doesn't seem to me that your proposed construction is at all even reasonable in light of this spec, and that's what you're losing being here. The word support, I think throughout this case, has been recognized as being a single hole. I don't think they've ever suggested that a support could be multiple holes. In fact, if you go to, if you're honest and not sure, but we did add that in the briefing, this issue basically concurrently in the claim instruction. We argued it together in the claim instruction, and the judge ruled in the same order. If you go to the judge's claim instruction on the issue and the word support, the judge agreed with Parvot's position that support is a hole. I don't think they can take the position, but when it says they first support, that really needs two holes. There has to be a second support that provides a second hole for the second pin, again, assuming that this claim is even limited to having to have two pins in the home position. It was pretty clearly drafted to not require that, and one of the points I want to make is to back up your honors to the patent in CO2. One of the things Parvot says is, this patent never envisions the possibility of an embodiment that doesn't have two pins in the home position. Okay, I'm in CO2 at line 41. When talking about the number of pins, it talks about the possibility of instant using binary coals to describe the invention. I think one reasonable way to look at that is you can just say, what is it? I'm not at the right place. Were you telling me column 2, like 41? Yes, it says. I don't see how this happens. While binary coals could be used, more magnets are required. In other words, the patent is preferring to buy two pins in the home position, and then these sectors are just required. One other pin, some learn. And so by that, they minimize the number of pins. But they say, alternatively, we could use a binary code, although more magnets are required. That doesn't seem to be to be just claiming what your initial introduction of this argument suggested. You suggested to me that this language almost disclaims something more. Exactly the opposite, Your Honor
. In fact, if you go to, if you're honest and not sure, but we did add that in the briefing, this issue basically concurrently in the claim instruction. We argued it together in the claim instruction, and the judge ruled in the same order. If you go to the judge's claim instruction on the issue and the word support, the judge agreed with Parvot's position that support is a hole. I don't think they can take the position, but when it says they first support, that really needs two holes. There has to be a second support that provides a second hole for the second pin, again, assuming that this claim is even limited to having to have two pins in the home position. It was pretty clearly drafted to not require that, and one of the points I want to make is to back up your honors to the patent in CO2. One of the things Parvot says is, this patent never envisions the possibility of an embodiment that doesn't have two pins in the home position. Okay, I'm in CO2 at line 41. When talking about the number of pins, it talks about the possibility of instant using binary coals to describe the invention. I think one reasonable way to look at that is you can just say, what is it? I'm not at the right place. Were you telling me column 2, like 41? Yes, it says. I don't see how this happens. While binary coals could be used, more magnets are required. In other words, the patent is preferring to buy two pins in the home position, and then these sectors are just required. One other pin, some learn. And so by that, they minimize the number of pins. But they say, alternatively, we could use a binary code, although more magnets are required. That doesn't seem to be to be just claiming what your initial introduction of this argument suggested. You suggested to me that this language almost disclaims something more. Exactly the opposite, Your Honor. It's interesting that usually it's the patent becoming an argument. My invention is very broad, and the accused infringer comes in and says, no, it's very narrow. It's kind of flipped here, where now far goes coming in and an effort to save their patent. It's like, oh, this claims a really very narrow, but really, if you have our spack, it's clear that you have to have two pins in the home position. You better explain to me again what we think this sentence means. This sentence, at least, envisions a broader embodying that doesn't require two pins in the home position. Because you could create a binary code of pins that would not be dependent on defining a home position. What does you need more magnets? True, it's not preferred. It's clearly not a preferred embodiment. But I'm not trying to argue in a slamer. I'm trying to make the point that they can vision as within the scope of their invention and embody the inner required two pins in the home position. Can we get right? All of this is so turned up by John, because we've got a half a tea that is written in the arrow, which is... It is an odd scenario, an odd scenario around. But at the end of the day, I think we need to keep in mind the fundamental distinction between claim interpretation and claim correction. What no vote says, in the case of the Final It, is once we have an error in explaining, the issue is no longer do we look to the specification and the prosecution history trying to find the most likely possibility. That's plenty of construction. And so, if that would be what we're going to want here, we think it's the most likely, and we'd say, well, as long as we can find one of those, that's the end of it, and we go home. And we say, it finds not indefinitely
. It's interesting that usually it's the patent becoming an argument. My invention is very broad, and the accused infringer comes in and says, no, it's very narrow. It's kind of flipped here, where now far goes coming in and an effort to save their patent. It's like, oh, this claims a really very narrow, but really, if you have our spack, it's clear that you have to have two pins in the home position. You better explain to me again what we think this sentence means. This sentence, at least, envisions a broader embodying that doesn't require two pins in the home position. Because you could create a binary code of pins that would not be dependent on defining a home position. What does you need more magnets? True, it's not preferred. It's clearly not a preferred embodiment. But I'm not trying to argue in a slamer. I'm trying to make the point that they can vision as within the scope of their invention and embody the inner required two pins in the home position. Can we get right? All of this is so turned up by John, because we've got a half a tea that is written in the arrow, which is... It is an odd scenario, an odd scenario around. But at the end of the day, I think we need to keep in mind the fundamental distinction between claim interpretation and claim correction. What no vote says, in the case of the Final It, is once we have an error in explaining, the issue is no longer do we look to the specification and the prosecution history trying to find the most likely possibility. That's plenty of construction. And so, if that would be what we're going to want here, we think it's the most likely, and we'd say, well, as long as we can find one of those, that's the end of it, and we go home. And we say, it finds not indefinitely. But once there's an error in the claim, what no vote says is you flip all that around, and you say, look, the question is whether the correction is subject to reasonable debate. And so, even if there's one year, we think it's more likely than all the others. And as long as there's at least two that are reasonable possibilities, that we have... And the fact that I'm not just using the spec, but every one of these is consistent with the specification, so maybe more likely you use the specification, but they are all consistent with the specifications. They are therefore all reasonable and under no will in the case of the following, the District Court corrected bounds on the claims age of 15 and death. You ought to believe that this Council's argument shows exactly what the following is, is starting backwards with no vote, and saying we've got a mistake whether it's starting more forward with claim construction. But I want to address a couple specific points. First of all, we have to remember this fact is about encoded, using magnets to create a code, because there are many different printer ribbons, so you have to have a series of magnets that a microprocessor can read the hall of fact, the magnetic effect, to come up with the code, it tells you what ribbing you have. That's why all of these holes, or some number of known holes, matter, and that's what's referred to in Col too. Binary is a form of encoding, which doesn't change the fact that column 5, that you determine where the code is and what it is by starting with a home position with two magnets right here, and then from there you read what could be a form of binary code, however it's encoded, but these holes are used to encode a number of different options for printer ribbons. Now, I also want to point to you in column 5. That is the specification indicate to us is the clear invention of the Federal Strike to have. Exactly what I'm going to say in column 5. It says, starting at line 28, as the first part of the claim deals with, you have an identifier in addition to the claim, column 5 at line 28 talks about what's the sign of the first identifier in addition to the claim, which is two holes, it's called the home position. At column 5, 28 to 30, those two pins are always filled with pins, it says that very clearly, there's no dispute about that. It's the only way to do this, this whole specification talks about the encoding, the whole effect, which starts with those two pins filled in in the home position. Then I would take you further down that column to you. It doesn't, your claim only talks about one home position
. But once there's an error in the claim, what no vote says is you flip all that around, and you say, look, the question is whether the correction is subject to reasonable debate. And so, even if there's one year, we think it's more likely than all the others. And as long as there's at least two that are reasonable possibilities, that we have... And the fact that I'm not just using the spec, but every one of these is consistent with the specification, so maybe more likely you use the specification, but they are all consistent with the specifications. They are therefore all reasonable and under no will in the case of the following, the District Court corrected bounds on the claims age of 15 and death. You ought to believe that this Council's argument shows exactly what the following is, is starting backwards with no vote, and saying we've got a mistake whether it's starting more forward with claim construction. But I want to address a couple specific points. First of all, we have to remember this fact is about encoded, using magnets to create a code, because there are many different printer ribbons, so you have to have a series of magnets that a microprocessor can read the hall of fact, the magnetic effect, to come up with the code, it tells you what ribbing you have. That's why all of these holes, or some number of known holes, matter, and that's what's referred to in Col too. Binary is a form of encoding, which doesn't change the fact that column 5, that you determine where the code is and what it is by starting with a home position with two magnets right here, and then from there you read what could be a form of binary code, however it's encoded, but these holes are used to encode a number of different options for printer ribbons. Now, I also want to point to you in column 5. That is the specification indicate to us is the clear invention of the Federal Strike to have. Exactly what I'm going to say in column 5. It says, starting at line 28, as the first part of the claim deals with, you have an identifier in addition to the claim, column 5 at line 28 talks about what's the sign of the first identifier in addition to the claim, which is two holes, it's called the home position. At column 5, 28 to 30, those two pins are always filled with pins, it says that very clearly, there's no dispute about that. It's the only way to do this, this whole specification talks about the encoding, the whole effect, which starts with those two pins filled in in the home position. Then I would take you further down that column to you. It doesn't, your claim only talks about one home position. Well, it's... Make sure I'm not misunderstanding, but I thought that they suggested that the ear proposed construction on one adopt, whether this report was that a support is always a single pin. And so when it says a first support in the hand position, claim would have applied your claim as much broader than one limited to two holes in the home position. It's not the way, first of all, and you can throw this out, because these are just their made up versions of our construction and terming the corrections. To get to your question, Judge Moore, what the claim says is that there's a first identifier in addition, comprising an unmanentized material in a first support. So that's this, the home position comprising, which is open language, at least this one pin, the first support is identified, but it's open language comprising. And then it goes on, as described, to be in home five, down at 38 to 43, it talks about how all of these additional holes are known positions, so that you can do the encoding. And it specifically talks about contrary to what Council said, the trailing positions that are open, I'm looking at line 49 and 50, and 54 and 55, that's part of the code that you leave some of these holes open. So that when the hall effect sensor is reading this, it goes around, there are known spots that are open, and it has to be known spots. So that you can read the code. For example, if you have a binary code, which means 010101, there are all kinds of historic ways known for encoding something in binary, and you have to have a system like we have here to read the code and decipher it. And that includes leading some of these holes open to make the codes. So these things, some of their constructions completely define the invention. This is, number five, it makes no sense. We have, or we're going to drill holes and put magnets in completely different places, the invention would never work. I mean, they're just making things up for purposes of getting out of liability, that make no sense. Thank you, John. All rise
. The honorable court is adjourned from day to day. Thank you