the plaintiffs voluntarily and we agreed to that and it's a question of the circuit court never reach for that reason this court should not and need not addressed the legal status of the


the authority of these state police officers who do what they did the legal question is not before the court if if the supreme court's injunction hinges in any way on loose legal issues about


mean when he went there they said what are your goals for fit so he told me i want to suppose for fitness work he didn't say and i don't have any other purpose in being here and if you've got a personal benefit as well


speaker family the corporate party said three children so there were five people total the corporation paid one thousand three hundred seventy nine dollars per year for health insurance for the state the family in addition


despite there being relevant evidence that should have been presented regarding this financial model the trial court prevented bradley from questioning parker on the false salt allegations


frivolous and it was not yet without merit so this is starting point for our evaluation here it issues not frivolous and it's not happening without merit what follows from that and all three of your honors have have put your fingers on what i think the issue is in


also represented bryant is enough to find a ethical violation you wouldn't have those those requirements in the rule it's the fact that mr sheppard was


very well disagree and think that he should have been chosen as the guardian you cannot say that that was an arbitrary decision by john sure where that no reasonable person would read that would have come to the same lucian


the point is that courts aren't allowed to work at annoying complaints and divine facts that are played for the sake of a foreign culture and that's the better analysis and the one that frankly dictates predictable


appeal i asked him if he was going to put in for it and he said he would my sister kept calling him he kept telling her he had to go back before the judge and eventually he told her you forgot he forgot because his wife died so the


was that there was some kind of it says assessment no one knows whether that man a diagnosis though knows whether that was just something that they were consider but what's interesting here is on a question from the court the defense could not even


the credibility on cross exam boaz said that she didn't defend it started dating again after your mileage out of jail in marshall twenty fourteen and they had lived together for one month from august through about september twenty fourth team but on


we created we're not going to fix those problems because we don't have an obligation to fix those problems there was a meeting that was howell by the utility board of november and the resolution was passed declaring the contract terminated the leader of iraq or the president


both those motions should have denied the plaintiff motion to even raise a very legitimate affirmative defense and take that out of the jury's consideration of the case so that they believe


is that the state legislature has pacifically set or specifically created scenarios where outside of work product you could eat those documents out and that's if they are related to an employee grievance or disciplinary


evidence was sufficient for the defendant guilty therefore there is jeopardy if they do that and if it is a matter of course my viewpoint on this reasonable doubt isn't is that's why the defendant raised it


prohibits sex with with individuals that are under seventeen and that obviously the legislature and the courts have permits that there's an inherent risk in individuals who do these he said have intercourse with certain age


every mistake me on the back witness it starts to break down the credibility of that one as in how heavily the court's going to rely on that and


visitation on a regular basis and as i stated after a year you think that in this circumstance no i don't the reason why i say that is because for a substantial period of time after she in temptin to


this option was given since to mr baker if the state wants to argue that there are serious doubts as it says in this brief as to the terms of the deal it was required to consent to a


correct and you know so i mean if i a if this justifies dismissing the case and you know the documentation is that i did accept you know it's all right


month and then so her income is roughly two and a half times royce in terms of net we believe that disparity is excessive in that the maintenance awarded here is an


with respect to the feb sixth date i did she said it's nowhere in the record yes it is page three thirty four affidavit of sharon pro exhibit beat through a lot of dr piper dated february six twenty


the time the quote below essentially ruled as a matter of law the courts were powerless in this area with the legislature had acted here and we didn't really get down to dealing with the the language of the policies in this


misrepresenting the holding of r c ecker saying that oh in the appellant's brief in that case there was a motion to dismiss with prejudice which was granted but i think we've got to go with whether he be a poet court opinion actually


also consider that the codefendant in this case received only thirty five years the judge considered the different applications of the law for these two individuals were charged with the same murder and how


financing issue and you agree there's a lot more than financing when you say are they making progress i would certainly agree with that so is your response hypothetically that


for his safety i would be silly his safety was a risk i would assume he could have yes but he chose not to he got the defendant out first thing and fiddled around with him a fair amount i don't remember i haven't seen the video in a while i don't remember how long he was


content neutrality is that you don't have this unbridled discretionary scheme so yes when you have a c u p requirement that is governing expressive conduct such as weddings and common who found that weddings are expressive conduct


been determined and it also says but not until thirty days after both of those conditions and requirements have been satisfied so we're


unwilling to offer anything to resolve a case she misread how you thought of arrival time so in paragraph town of her ten eleven sixteen declaration so he says she arrived about five or ten minutes late chucked into the court room


faith if in fact there are genuine issues of fact as relates to whether the repairs were paid then the bad faith needs to go back to right that's correct so you don't dispute that well it


over and over is that we opened this forum for this purpose we can close it right the state has an inherent right to close a form that open ok so here's my problem where have we ever said where has the supreme court set a really frankly any circuit any court that


was it was a viewpoint motivated or not it really and the other side of the coin is if we take your example and you say all of the student activities that have some expressive first amendment content to them were affected the same


when the supreme court said you look at the title given and the me substance behind the title in part they were looking at not what was hosanna to bore arguing after the lawsuit filed they were looking at what did they say before hand because to the


parish one of the parish ministries is a school and this is not unusual many parishes have that and as part of her employment she was employed in sign an employment


are going to be covered by the ministerial exception full stop that's your position i said that's that's correct your honor the purpose behind the ministerial exception is to avoid the government from entangling itself


one or two of them are relevant to this case at all in terms of being a source identifying usage of mastermind which is another big problem most of the evidence submitted by defendants shows mastermind using lyrics or other non source identifying ways not it uses a


consider a police practices expert on reasonable reason illness on summary judgment is just not the law that's a dealing with a different situation when they were trying to use an expert opinion on its own to establish an reasonableness as a matter of law


consider it something that would need to be turned over now that's not determine whether it in fact should have been turned over or not but in terms of whether there would have a prosecution there certainly would have been so i just wanted to add a word about qualified


in this case and they did two things and i'll speak on a quick because i'm out of time here they said it's either preconceived designed to injure which you'll find in the claim or a case in the corner case everyone every court in california now has recognized has been limited to its facts


seems to suggest an elevated cmdr requirement i don't know how that squares with proof a specific intent to be fraud is not required language but well as the argument yeah yeah and it gets back to my prior point that that intent to reduce reliance is


as a matter of state law procedure you can make collateral attack on the judgment so you're going to take it back and use that to undo the state court judgment right that would be the attempt that would be the attempt now there's also of state court law that cited in


you know it's quite a lengthy complaint right right there's a number of paragraphs where where this is stated


is incurred that mers is there to make sure that the appropriate lender is notified that some action is being taken there is language in the deed of trust in the note talking about the a side ability and the fact


so that you'll see somebody violated something or somebody didn't violate something i mean they were working together on this case so they have they have the defendant they have the city as well and actually by the way we we've


they listed the tape numbers of the key witnesses in that as well and they presented all of this to the district attorney the fact that you know twelve or thirteen years later they don't remember what they


frankly your honor that issue is not addressed in the district court well i know but that's been raised as an alternative and it has been but it was not addressed in just a court so they just recorded an address and we didn't respond to it right but you have now and it's before us and i had


to obtain rulings about work at a specific location or work site where they have a history of historically performing that work here we don't have that we have entities like surf city


certificates are delivered ok which is did not happen in this case but just go with me if you would and then on day two there's a round trip transaction to pay for them under that scenario when does the cause of action accrue they won ok thank you thank you both very much for your argument


caused by a psychotic disorder which is related to an extreme form of fibroid disease this case presents two related claims both associated with mr alvarez his mental competency at his trial


to use by the proxy for the players play correct and then and then he instructs the his agent as to the number of cards and the price of the cards to be played


but again at that time because of the great length of time that she'd been taking the p p i medication a reasonable person wouldn't make the connection a reasonable person who like ms beacon's is a


there the court this court said relying on because many of the california cases cited here including fox the court said to delay a cruel of an otherwise time barred claim under the discovery rule the


a couple of months to come up with a final supplemental yes and we expect to have all of these issues back before judge lewis well in advance of any construction beginning and there will be no construction here until january twenty eighth at the earliest and what construction there will be at


this court identified five different things that that that give us an indication as to whether or not extrinsic evidence is the kind of thing that will taint the other jerks and the first point is how was the mature we'll see


see my time is brief i'll be quick with respect to the five hundred three application if you look at the complaint in aca action there are specific allegations talking about things that are separately actionable if you look at paragraph thirty six by


we pleaded aid unregistered claim for infringement of that mark that's our unregistered trademark claim that survives that is to court fraud really in addition we have the unfair competition claims so all of those claims should be reversed and we should be allowed to pursue those


touch the the basis for the unfair competition theory that's the claim that you know what what keeps the court from not recognizing that a party that conducts fraudulent activity should not be allowed to step sideways and


american market that won't make us dependent on foreign sources that won't make us dependent on depleted fossil fuel sources and we even within our country so if you don't do the multi tiered you're not going to encourage the renewable energy


comprehensive remedy to bounce us out of nine hundred eighty three and now we don't have any remedies whatsoever virtually beyond just asking this court to order the district court to order p u c to order the utilities to follow the law


individualized inquiry as to whether or not people were controlled or felt controlled in the bondo case the california court of appeal held that if you were strict at the location of the of the meal period then you are as a matter of law not free of all duty


was made that this case has very similar facts to the systems case it really doesn't because what distinguishes this case from almost all of the other cases that have been cited by the parties is that in these systems there was no dispute that neither party


so two points on that your honor first of all the f or a has a list of enumerated exceptions to the general rule and there is no police powers or work force exception to the general rule of preemption


labor force to have a definition for what is independent contractor and what is the employee and the answer to that reconciling the this court's opinion in eighty eight versus l a ports


i mean is that kind of cut against you thought i mean the officer wasn't really trying to push to talk to him he wanted to get to the other location and your client on a sound said well yeah i really don't want to i want to tell you everything or whatever right i think i think


confession is the best part of the case i don't think there's a good faith argument that confession wasn't an important piece of evidence and in a case like this it often comes down to sort of the confession coupled with how how it messes with


states nor any under sixteen a burning the property of another is a crime of violence that's the generic definition burning your own property would not be a crime of violence ok we've got that straight x the statute


equal access to that kind of information while it's being sent out presumably through government resources and i don't i don't it's any different using it government telephones so how is that but the government telephone i guess on one level requires affirmative action and taking


mr hill saying and if you do good luck in ever getting another permit building permit zoning anything else and maybe your license won't be renewed next year either or maybe the inspectors of your shop every week


again i think there was a discussion about the legislative history of the church callahan pointed out the some of the legislative history is included in the excerpts of record on pages one forty seven to one fifty eight and it's clear that nothing in the legislative history


repeated references to this throughout the record there says something like ten different times it comes up in the course of the trial it's featured in opening statement it's featured very firmly in summation


and to me that's right on par with what happened here although you want to save you time counsel you're in the plan entirely up to you i will save the rest of my time ok thank you


means that materials or bonded together without the addition of another material like and he's it and the term all tardiness is not so limited as to the bonding


ability for the first time to use a credit card to pay for your parking and you see these parking meters outside the court there off of the country let me let me focus you personally over fifty four i think your honor in the claim


construction when they were preparing their papers and i think there's a real question as to whether that construction right now we're talking about a different issue which is whether something which recruits a lot or has an over


yeah and this is this is where she entered the construction or she discussed the construction of or see well what we're talking about the earlier claim construction that govern when the parties filed their papers not some other construction that see


brain came from the top aged yes and in even if you mean lee's frames are slightly more process why does that demonstrate that tight hitting seven six one six is more appropriate than


orderly find that i mean i know you argue that certainly but i don't know if the board actually provided on earth your alternative argument is that even if the claimant compass is directed to a three node or more system


giving that but what was it i think wasn't what's important is that the disclosure in the ninety seven six patent doesn't say that there's any way to overcome any of these problems that the said about heating the magnesium staring they seem to suggest that they have invented this


benefits really is not the lens from which to review whether a claim is obvious or not and importantly i claim construction our claims couldn't be even were our claim couldn't be more abundantly clear that you have to have the thing together first before it's heated and i would just commend the court


argument related to eligibility and eligibility invalidity are not the same thing but we have multiple cases in which you have held otherwise already so how is it that you think this panel


would deal with counterpoint but we don't dispute that whether it was the eleventh amendment or state sovereign immunity written large of what we don't have a counterpoint we have an affirmative defense


my correct in understanding that the part of the attorney that talks at all about the state of the battery charge and how it factors and can be found in the telling me at page twenty six you know


right to rebut we have a right to rebut the obviousness arguments that they may in their response and they didn't they didn't after we did that they didn't move to strike our reply they didn't move


claims its use without vehicle device go correct correct and it seems to me that you have pretty good argument that were and with respect to the vehicle device code claims that their primary reliance was on the signal


we see at line twenty three the twenty four when the differences between the electrical systems current status and the virtual system models calculated calculated outputs exceed the threshold the inventions initiate a


when used in reference to exchange keys if you didn't mean reference keys were moving back and forth


duration of the criminal trial but where was the articulation of why and what it has to do with my job it's not a case like in that donington case where there's a border patrol agent who is hard to get sexual in that this is your case i don't


v a in my judgment hides behind the notion that they want to integrate this with the very thing that is the trigger to consideration which is its rating schedule doesn't work and tinnitus


perfect example ten percent is not adequate in my hypothetical veteran situation to compensate him adequately and that then requires the consideration of the totality of his service


eleven through eighteen routing can be based on the address which we do not claim and if you read that language it separates out routing based on the address based on routing rather browsing based on what's in the subject or in the


eligibility determination that was before the court to make but isn't it true he didn't get to make the eligibility determination that was made by a different part of the day all he could do was look at the database i don't think that's accurate i don't think that the only thing the


as to whether we're looking that at every day or pearl quality in the state of that already yes it certainly does and your honor that going back to the issue of you know holding this case


article that is prima facia described by two competing provisions and one of them is chapter ninety five the article always goes in chapter ninety five except this court held michael simon designed and part b smith except if it's described in one of the x will you never know and in this case


that we would argue that the court could use those other facts to uphold or to find a harmless error and in the context of harmless error there's not only fact finding that can find something harmless if the veteran was not


inventors having different roles and you can see for example at appendix thirty nine fifty two one of the inventors wolf testifies that it was clear who did the analytical work it was right there who did the chemical


so there would have been something more to try had this issue been identified or clear i don't think there was anything more to be tried we know exactly when dr wright near made the


shields who is the corps attorney told me he told me they sent it to the justice department and the justice department didn't tell didn't determine that it was a final opinion and i raised


areas that have been written to in areas that haven't been written to because the claim says area one can also take what would be viewed by a person ordinary skill in the art as they were memory parse it down and come up with a single area that


seventy one twenty two thirty eight proficiency arbitrator's from reviewing matters of serious discipline that includes terminations so because congress adopted that that is why arbitrator


there is an alternative regime it might not be a fish and i'm not sure hope fish and antitrust litigation is but it's the patents fear where you have already defended him against infringement and you've prevailed in terms of the


yes yes and so we've got a little gate affectively ten cases in capital one still standing it's gone over ten so these cases go to one it's going ten for temple of on time that's exactly right and so what this is shown here is that we've got to spend a


brown shoe and the reasonable interchangeability of used test explains how we define a market professor you didn't did you in your brief i mean you make arguments with respect to substitute and so forth but i


went beyond the words that were in the complaint in terms of what the market was but perhaps he's forgetting the transcript of the hearing before a judge trying again and the


and determining design arounds and terminating innovation it all leads to our and i trust injury we talked about earlier so that part's clearly non petition and i would disagree with your honor if you're suggesting otherwise that simply licensing discussions without the threat of


from it could be it could it could be any type of equipment my understanding is that there's that the warehouse is not related to the issues in dispute in this case and that it is a separate separately


point that these rights are not like you use rights they are rights to a fishery connected to a reservation so whether there is land immediately adjacent to where that issue areas exercise


you have no way to file those follow on petitions what would you do how would you deal with that problem creatively if you were faced with that help me and that's what's puzzling the is how do we get someone like


court that you allege all of the claims that you're going to pursue in that court in your complaint usually courts california other courts have contention processes whereby you name the claims you're going to pursue in that case at a


have been you're not elected to go forward to trial so with regard to the two hundred and forty five pat pat down or has one all of the claims at issue there the patent office found that every claim petition was not obvious


i have a couple more question oh ok percy maybe more than a couple but i'll try to keep the floor first of all the amended final


confusion and back and forth and it kind of struck believe that under those circumstances the c i t did not abuse its discretion in saying i'm going to send it back


out and no one disputes that those papers i think i would direct the court to page six of our reply brief where we discussed the actual complaint that a b b raised initially before the c i t the specific programming language with with respect to the


expert testimony on what a corresponding structure is in a specification so but i don't want to put too much emphasis the focus really should be on the intrinsic evidence as you noted and that's the st and foremost in the claim


construction that ip com had identified he disagreed with it because what he did do was to evaluate the prior art in light of that three step construction for the corresponding structure and also in light of ip comms infringement contentions in


concluding that there just wasn't enough data you're under a concrete conclusion was of it seems to me that a fair way to read that is not to say that they simply applied a five percent


she did say she wouldn't be a potential witness no she just she left and it was a mere suspicion of misconduct at that time that triggered the investigation but the government is allowed to do that the government is allowed


i do disagree with that i do not think that that is the law i think the law says that there must be more than a mere trivial variation in order to get copyright protection so no copyright does not


summit which by the way to this day apple we have never seen the suppose at fabric designs once in this case we have no idea whether they are an exact copy of meridians deposits we don't know what they are there are


patience yes so there's the issue of the side effects of the pain medication and then there's also the issue of his pain and whether or not you know how long he can actually sit there and talk about the physical exertion requirements it's not enough that he can just sit


defendant sat down and talked about that we're not going to do this because it's going to be too much money in fact they denied doing it altogether so they're kind of this is an after the fact relation of how we can get the worker's comp materials in before the jury but has nothing to it's creating


was delusional at the time of the offense it should have been evaluated by an expert author and also as to the issue of trial councils declaration frequently trial lawyers don't cooperate and we don't know whether dixie


simply so wiped out from the effects not only of the severe medications he was taking but of the rheumatoid arthritis itself that he laid down about six hours out of a typical eight hour day and that


you can't say a domestic violence victim for example or a child abuse victim can't be successful academically as there never been a domestic violence victim that was successful academically i mean i think it's preposterous the position of their argument


the new board because the new nine hundred ninety three starters come into effect and the board says they didn't say it but let me just play off the hypothetical we'd like to give you twelve months but we can't because now it's thirty sixth or nothing is that


you know president enough that to go and are smart enough to go and look at brand x you could've put those two things together and figured out where we were going direct mr vargas could not do that well mr mayor i got the benefit of brand that x but he's got no idea what the board's going to


matter of e h from a couple of months ago which we attached to our end bank brief agrees with this reason it's an unpublished decision but it recognizes that after moncrief the question is not the one that the board conceived of in mr armand's this case which was did you prove


seems to me that they said i compare elements regardless of all of that if i can make the elements compare all of that makes no difference but is this question applying to whether we use an elements versus


in once again i mean i think there's there's some cross examination i guess the question really revolves around cross examination writing what we're really looking at here again is the admission and whether it's harmless there and when i read the statements to detective


work that lead needs little or no judgment to do simple duties that can be learned in a short period of time requires for basic abilities understanding remembering and carrying out simple instructions consistent with what the a


there i mean that's that's conceded as i understand the question is whether they had probable cause to think it was in there there was and they raided two places the officers and during the briefing very very specifically deputy rist ling


torment type situation and boiled down the bulk of the problem in this case was to write ups which one resulted in a loss of pay but it was we're talking six thousand to three


in looking at the remained what i'd also like the court to know the documents in the record all that was ever supplied to the court is key summaries and even the immigration judge indicated that the appear to be on line printouts so


white case so that's application let's set aside all of the definitional terms here she was a local supervisor who apparently lacked the authority to terminate that plaintive without having to go to


then all he's doing is implementing the policy he's not creating it influencing it i mean if if the record had shown for example he did this and somebody else did it later the same sort of


have seventy five or six years something like that you don't he's these these detectives are pros i mean i was a prosecutor for twelve years i know the homicide detectives they're


because its review of summary judgment was the noble and subsequent to the jury verdict and because it could have fear affirm on any ground of appearing in the record the verde the second jury verdict trumps the claims


united states supreme court law in right when shit sullivan saying that you can't just a race a verdict you have a right to a unanimous jury verdict and here that the jurors were


ok so what language are you saying that at the end of that paragraph you aren't says the court has also considered the possibility as to whether his asylum claim must also take into consideration imputed political opinion and then your honor looking at page one hundred one where


the very limited probative value any of the what they had would offer the court had to balance whether any testimony offered or any of the systems that would that would have led to the testimony would shift the jury's focus away from


also wrongful in at the trial he had was fundamentally flawed by unreliable eyewitness identification deficient representation by a trial lawyer who is now disbarred a d n a evidence that


were conducted mr benjamin's d n a was found on the hat present at the scene there was nothing to interpret and that report went straight into the record it was admitted as an exhibit the jury had it and the person who testified


important distinguishing factors between petitioners case and the lender's d s which petitioner has not demonstrated why those two differences are unreasonable and that


of contract claim certainly depend on on portions of the collective bargaining agreement but because the plaintiff here effectively did not have access to the union bargaining that the union grievance procedure that was built into the collective


not need to be cooperated the jury at trial heard the evidence that challenge her challenge her testimony and they evidently believed that much of it was true well


testimony so for these reasons it is harmful error and it should be reversed


here because on the one hand they acquitted him of first degree murder which necessarily involves premeditation yet they didn't fully accept his imperfect


going to simply demand was that they not talk to anyone from mr koppel side and so on so mr guinness is saying that he's actually using david lynn as a liaison to these witnesses now david lindh is seriously


was very concerned about quine and about white and about rogue away and i believe there was a pretrial ruling that she was not going to be allowed to go into that and that is not allowed to question about that unless quine and white recalled a trial that's correct


years and therefore we're in a tough state well this i guess this court has dealt with this problem before it was like the technical definition of it


language well i understand that gonzalez gonzalez is pretty straight about what we look at when and when we're looking at this kind of a situation and and i guess i'm having trouble because


yes and could you before you start cortez canal is was appealed to this court i was on that panel we heard argument we went through all of


you know ask the court to not go along with the language of the government has in their brief about limiting that simply to dismissing the conspiracy convictions and not letting the judge reconsider the sentence


choice piece of property for anybody to show up but the credit bidder is that true and why we presented the evidence and it's in the record in this case and it was although people complained that it was inappropriate to put in evidence on a rule twelve frankly your honor


the only conclusion no not necessarily the only one but this is the point of summary judgment i'm entitled of the move as an unmoving party to the inference that most favors me what's the evidence that krugman was alone in the trailer did the photographer


products of where we grew up to so easy here in the united states for twenty five years we want people to come here to


his citizenship is in question it comes to this court and you guys said you're right or a suicide thing i said that this is an issue of fact is he is in the united states you said to back a transfer of no twelve fifty two b five the standard under


the petition for review and to send the case back for further development of the record concerning the likelihood that he would suffer harm in his home country because of the status as an age


be unaware of that critical detail forming the basis for her persecution crime so what we have with regard to that issue is a lack of corroboration by this particular witness thought should be in a position


life the life of prisoners so what you have here is just a narrow question which is did did no been present evidence sufficient to establish a material question of fact as to whether or not that were created


see six no your honor because mr nelson repeatedly said he needed counsel to conduct discovery he was aware of the process and judge bars on scheduling order went above and beyond the rules of civil procedure and laid out


this open death threats so the lad the other thing i'd like to say is that the the nothing that the that the state has said about the facts in the case


look at the year eight the drawings reflect pretty clearly that there's drawstrings in the upper portion of the bag that their purpose is to cinch the back that's what they're there for and the examiners point is keeping those drawstrings with


disputes over what those representative products and claims would be actually not claims products either i'm not sure that we asked the court to find representative claims so that is your question i'm not sure about that


week from now or here from now or four years from now we move our of florida and into a state where there are no make and she's required we don't want to keep pay those the special masters order on this subject that permit


more plausible explanation but overall it never says that's what it is just says the line painter and a sweeper and it's not inherent it's not one hundred percent guarantee that it has to be a road speaker or road sign now i think the reference


after weighing competing testimony presented during a full trial on the merits of the district court correctly determined as a factual matter that elision dries its films using a silly conventional convection air drying from the top process this is precisely what the


laws that now you get to escape the costs under the p t a for filing an r c well when you're doing something in substance that very much looks like an r c well if we had if we had let's say filed you know instead of the first


different way that that wasn't our argument but what our position was is that because we didn't need to precisely determine what caused it what constitutes a unique


not to reflect not the image that defective areas but to bridge them to go over them in the way that it is a pothole in the street you can either repair it or you control big metal plate over it our patents are talking about engaging the whole


nine the government concedes that the work load caps are not quote functional performance or design requirements they have nothing to do with our ability to perform the contract out more to ensure a reliable and continuous performing of the met counter and is the


i think in a way even mayo agrees its opening brief a page fifteen minutes describing the court's decision anew vargas said quote the applicant's continued examination request is responsible for all the time up until our


in view of those looking at sure in view of those two references it's right there right there for a person for your skill in the art given what the challenges lay it's there if you put them together knowing what happened if


is quite expansive and i'm told that in rare cases the second instance court can in fact call for a second hearing if i have matching if something comes up in their deliberations so the answer is nobody knows haven't


there's no score examiner and the board backed him up in this didn't play that role of a referee he adopted the role of being a member of the opposing team whose job was to


and then years down the road it comes to light would you say congress could proceed as it did here even though the green it perfectly does the tail of the transaction others what i'm trying to get to is you know with can't


me i'm just concerned about process or and i recognize that concern and i think to some extent that certainly if the court wants more that if the court can certainly do that and the arbitrator


which is combining channels to increase catteries these are just traditional frequency division channels go back to the beginning of television standard our expert explained it all contacts this fits so you only thing that


here on this and then that leaves us with is there some kind of implied definition and the most you have here is that they have a preferred embodiment that uses specific types of frequency channels


default order that this court has affirmed already awarded damages and as noted in that decision that was not appealed in the in the st appeal and so only the accounting was left and


protect themselves for use of force excessive use of force type claims and also so that they can hold their officers accountable and so there never was a distinction the court appropriately said you're


me finds in fact i believe we did have that in the brief but it was inappropriate because the order was entered subsequent to the briefs filing on the sanctions water and was preserved within the argument here so both for the damages


needed to do the test and we we of course we were never sure whether the all the material was going to arrive and that even if the mobile lab was going to get there on time so the protocol was meant to cover any


and the fact that we were using two hundred and fifteen times that level of a one percent that the make more it was organised would have been killed immediately that is why we did not use ice or shaking him in there in the past because there was no


interpretation of the claim of the term sealed tank but isn't it fair maybe to say that what the destroyed actually did was look at the term sealed tank and how we interpreted it in the context of the entire claim


honour's regarding the contract language what i was trying to describe really just want to clarify when we're trying to figure out what our rights and contract rights described in the mortgage it really is an odd phrase


shouldn't remanded this to the board to allow additional evidence and take another look that's one argument but we have multiple arguments and one one that seems more likely within our jurisdiction i would that sounds great so diagnostic could seventy to six again


horizontal well then that means that it would been obvious to do multi stage wracking aside from the fact that nobody did it for spectators but it was not technically obvious to do that because of the zonal isolation problems for example that yost experienced it was


calcification of the situation in front of you and so that i think this is a legal error by the board to suggest that because there are extreme cases in one or the other of overlap that that satisfies their burden of showing motivation combined of the question is would want to


formatting data far of transmission is incorrect for three reasons number one it's inconsistent with the specification as i just explained with respect to figure three d number two it's inconsistent with the language of claim five


with respect to the nd claim construction issue for claim six emerson on the board it improperly construed the claim limitation of a transmitter configured to transmit a relatively low power


find that this product met the physical description of the merchandise the argument that queen made that that in fact their product is a merchant bar which is a different product that's made to a smooth around something special surprise not a commodity product that's used for


does not create a disallowance thirty one dollars to a one to does not create a disallowance it sets the ground rules the general rules of costa level ability and t com explicitly


it your honor the burden is on the contractor to make that showing to the country and in this instance the contractor had that opportunity so with respect to the merits of the underlying


abstract apart from the surrounding language of the claim and it's that step as well as surrounding steps and the language of the specification in light of the surrounding language in light of the specification it would be unreasonable to construe traffic jam as as google urges


dignitaries i think my friend misspoke at the beginning and said that it wasn't in the rd category it certainly is in the rd category column two and finally the the question of real time it really doesn't add


anything the ale j b pointed to the at the edge and never applied some reason it's a quote specifically regardless of how much actual reason is required we have an infringement here is what they said now that does not apply a definition of some resilience same thing with the


the other way compared to what we argue but we think that it's better illustrated in the order that we argue that in the border of the claims there is a requirement of transmitting the request from the client device to the base station


that explains that there are three possibilities the base station gives the client devices an opportunity to make a band with request one is that no request is made another is that a request is made and the grant this


there's an arrow there from the ground pending absence state to the grant pending state that arrow is labeled with grant the same grant that my friend contends has to occur in the grant pending absence state turning to page thirty


the morning your honour's may please the court as this court recognizes this appeal involves a purely factual issue motivation to combine in finding a motivation to combine the board properly considered all the arguments and weighed all the


logical relationships in this field and in the district court didn't make a credibility adverse credibility determination all he did was explain how things actually work in transcoding and logical relationships are key but on the other hand if you're going to say that


as those contracts are being performed as the employees are earning these benefits and the best place to look and see if they're separate events is in your thoughts on letters when they make when they tell us they're making a change they don't try to link them together


maybe there's some distinction to be drawn between the skinny label on the fully well what having read as much as i have in the head that's not the case the way the case ran right it was it your view that when you say the label matters but you didn't


limitation here under the credit construction so if your if your honour's reversed that construction there is now a fact finding by the board that is supported by substantial evidence that would preclude jobson from meeting our claim limitation is it a matter of claim construction or something


something so there's another use of the word scale ability that isn't referring to bytes what is it i can tell you there are three in the pattern ok i didn't but i assumed that's what you were thinking which is why you pause know well what


so it's just for me and i'm sort of baffled what what exactly given that all the dotted line stuff on page eight sixty six you're sending food it which includes the roller coaster looking way in which it extends back beyond the


she had a cane and noted it in or observations when she st applied for disability benefits she was asked when did you stop working she said i stopped work in july of two thousand and nine she said did you stop working because of your impairment she says no i got fired


sixty looked at all these things that come out where you weren't i couldn't find it because it seems to be this is close that's why even ask if you got another motion that would work in a seventy eight may not work as my good colleague pointed out ok


a little bit of time left and i do mean a little bit my steam counsel she indicated that a conditional read rule seventy filed in


increased contributions but isn't that a matter for congress to to address in terms of legislation if that if that situation is occurring or as you have pointed out if your client feels that this is creating a an


is they have the contributions transferred those contributions are transferred into the plan and credit is given for those amounts so the pension amount which is the same pension amount that would be contributed on behalf of members in this plan which is for sixty two dollars per hour which


coast plan it will be transferred to the home funds without deductions of any kind whatsoever and the reason why this case is up here is that they didn't


contributions you know the as much as from their home plan but do they get to then draw he reduced pension from the place where they were travelling and the answer is yes well they


and in her own observations during the interview and recording of symptoms and observing her behavior during the interview manifesting those symptoms as simple the cavalry doctor we were also include


and also there was evidence in the record about ms go on to continue doing problems with headaches and inability to concentrate the mishandling of this evidence at the administrative law judge hearing has contributed to


of improvement issues there's there's simply not much there what is there is as if this were a st level decision simply describing what her condition was


well sure you have to defend a frivolous claim but i don't think that you can reasonably that the standard for a potential claim is that you have facts or circumstance that might reasonably lead insured to believe that a claim is going to be asserted against them


case and what it said is because the defendant came up behind the woman used enough force to get down the block before she was able to even reach for it there was enough intent and enough force and you can look at that through this lens with the potentiality


again the question under ed is not whether the state supreme court erred by not extending existing supreme court precedent the question is is there a supreme court case that the state court unreasonably applied and this is very


foreign on convenience doctrine and that the analysis does not change when you're dealing with a foreign one convenience issue where there is no transfer available it's dismissal you know i've talked to the receiver for almost forty years and it's very clear that


actually dismembers the analysis that i think smith and wesson raises for the st time today i don't think they made that choice of the law argument what they argued was gallo and gallo is a


to protest to is there i was struck by the fact that neither brief actually deals with the statute well there's nothing in the statute that says that is that correct your honor i believe it used to be in the statute and what the case law


supposed to be you say it doesn't but if drugs that's closure that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes and i would seems to me that it's arguable that the information that


as i understand the argument made by your adversary in order to comply with the statutory requirements you've got to give two different forms one of them beforehand consumer reports and the other one no later than three days


i asked him in the relation to the time frame that your father passed is that help you remember when the comments were made i don't exactly know do you know if you remember it was while he was still alive yes so it was his father died in september of fifteen do you remember if it was months


for so age two claims that the claim or the rule must be made retroactive by the supreme court and the supreme court looked at that very clearly that was the question in tyler versus


apply but they answer your question more squarely is when you allege at the beginning of a case you're not sure exactly what the extent of those damages are what the federal rules require is that you allege what the nature of those damages are and that comes up


had good morning your honors and may please the court will bring well here on behalf of the appellant new investments inc respectfully request trees or five minutes of my time for rebuttal this court should


occurred mr seymour tells us that june second was the last day that he visited the vessel and so those those are both of those instances are breaches of contract which led directly to the situation that western challenger is in now


over as i understand it is about a summons to assert party that's correct for a specific information yes so why is it that we are not focusing on whether that information that's being


there's a new forest plan if you win you're already contesting that right maybe haven't you answered james callaghan question you have about ten questions yeah yeah so what yeah so there is actually an injunction in place the


that mean that a third of the project area violates the standard but actually we can't superimpose those grizzly bear calculations on to the elk because the forest plan requires two different scales of analysis yes and that's what this


under th circuit present by not putting in their initial brief and this court can ask a more fundamental question are there even any damages played here and perhaps that doesn't take away their right to amend to add damages but i don't see any damages actually pled they don't


in oval by this court this is an appeal from a summary judgment on these issues there are also construction of contract issues which are to novo review for this court the first point is with respect to the contract


but if you leave it for that so i thought you had a good point that the january conversation where he said i think you're discriminate against me it's protected activity but you have a case that says that that october conversation would be protected activity and


and we're going to check in all the time my proposed order may not have been artfully drafted i could have and i've changed my position saying that there should be a policy that the administrator of the alaska court system whose defendant


council yes we're comfortable with the advisory council giving good advice on whether these roads are important to all the varied interests that are on the site exactly happened here yet years they did you just saying that they went


she did reported her observations of how dysfunctional the crowd was in that room that is totally consistent through this record and of and i didn't mention this audio but live evidence is also consistent with with


state because i view this statute as a sensually conferring on the non title holding spouse the same kind of community property interest that would exist in a community property state as of the date that the vision for dissolution


legal question i wanted to provide some facts that i think are important to the analysis of it these are all undisputed apps it is undisputed that the installation took place in what is called a


your honors counsel please the court and i'm sure my hopes and i represent she's west for the purposes of scope of consent the question at issue is whether reasonable typical person would understand the


and much less hours so you're saying that's the adverse employment action i guess i would back up your honor a little bit you know respectfully i've not i think there is a bit of a dispute in the record as to whether miss christian voluntarily took herself over to salmon creek or


it was never a reasonable response to tell her to go into the bright break room whenever the customer came into the bank i know it's given a sort of a very pretty or it of sense that that was sort of like the bank was being indifferent and


statue of limitations is an issue of law and whether or not the statute has run is an issue of law i don't think that he should be charged to have waived it in this circumstance and he certainly raising it on appeal


all just localities i mean we've never said we trust the federal government more than which was locals local entities i would think that's that's not our point your honor our point is that in those cases there were violations of a


these periodic bond hearings that you feel is the bigger problem as do you expanded upon not just the constitutional concerns but how they're threatened when you have the jailer when you don't have an independent decision maker making


and finding of fact seventy six there's been a notation is in front of for every single so there was five hundred dollars proposed finding the facts and conclusions of law on this case at its onset every single one of them was an annotated and reviewed extensively by counsel


cause without notice does he have any claim against the


an employee hasn't worked the ninety days and so does not have grievance rights under a collective bargaining agreement that district court lacks jurisdiction to even entertain a breach of contract claim i'll give you those citations young versus anthony's fish grotto eight hundred


seeing you are religious entities or have some religious involvement and two that the board members could have some contingent responsibilities that impacted appointment of


her to be able to do or past relevant work and which is the the objective evidence is very strong in this case now i think an important part


claim thirty we're talking about a communication from a mobile device to a first destination and you know that we didn't get it in claim can star so we can not get into our mobile devices the specification makes clear that there's a


the fact that it is phrased as maximum torque output is almost coincidental it is simply a metric it talks about the way the engine works the size of the engine that's what it means it doesn't refer to a particular


from intel on emerson to instruct their supply chain people to use your client's infringing resin and so therefore the site is of good to seventy one b viability of you


cases as i understand it arlington in the west virginia case those dealt with expert feet and it seemed to me that the the same rules would apply to expert fees as they apply to as they fight with tourney speeds at least in terms of the american


parimutuel wagering on a past historic race that is an idea a new idea but it's also the methods and systems that are implemented to enjoy that idea so i would submit that the combination of a


implement it doesn't mean that it's not inventive you can still get a patent if you can show that that thing has never been done before it's enough that if that hasn't been done before the question is is there some


cited by the the board to demonstrate that net centrex had deep understanding or significant understanding and an excellent understanding of the requirements and so they're not judging per


one or more if the single she claims were unfair and asked of the single merchant claim the board relied for this for the claim single merchant claim claims the board relied on one


that we have a reexamination file history here and we have a reexamination certificate that happened almost what overlap so there's a lot of simultaneous activity between the central reexamination unit and the


for me to buy the argument that the results of what happened after that that voluntary action shouldn't being able to be voluntary because he was intoxicated who were intoxicated you don't have control over your


situation where if there's a typo i think it's rather common sense to correct that typo before he submit the payment especially if you know and this is right on both sides of the parties here the expert testimony is that


in which i referenced there's public documents that that talk about yes there was spray but the actual documentation of it would be in the possession of the cia because they were the ones who over oversaw


good reason it's articulated by the petitioner and then just a couple of pages later board my impression adopts the petitioner's rationale for making this combination so why isn't that sufficient i mean


conventional computer time not in an abstract concept communicating information about a mail piece my use of a market so on putting my return address sticker on a piece of mail that's a marking right that's


vulnerabilities on the other that's what they're arguing on the appendix fourteen fifty four mr mueller made that same argument to the district court that there's no distinction between a discrepancy in a vulnerability and the course


letter back to her said we should wait and yes and we think we might have some arguments about you know regarding stall law but instead of asking the parties for more briefing she just decided the


be with prejudice well i believe that if the the the court can make that determination if they do or after a factual attack on jurisdiction where the court does consider evidence and the plaintiff is given a full and complete opportunity to air those issues there would be no reason if they don't even ask


and every canonic interest and misuse or has offered no evidence that she'll ever be able to get that company back or take any steps to do that there's no evidence in this record to support that inference alone option situation would be different because


more recent decision that i really think the district court's decision was pressured here when you see that she applied alice and d d r which is what we had at the time and found that under d d r especially these claims improve the


patents before in the infringement context and found several times actually and found that some products do in french but other products are found not to infringe several others and there are others that are listed in the brief in the red brief that


specific dates there was the attorney death aeration that was submitted there was deposition testimony from the inventor as well and so it was a fundamentally different case where you had all this evidence from the inventor himself that needed to be corroborated


our contention it makes no difference at all the the decision of the arbitrator is based on it's based on the law and he she it's a correct decision based on correct or correct statement of the law and the


as a retired commander i became kind of technical expert on how what the water does and what it does once it goes into the distilling plant but that's the background of why we did what we did is haas had convinced us that you


was not clear enough so that it did include two bays and harbors but there was no explanation for why those were included or how we're constantly because the foot online policy is tied to that's the


waste recognition software package which is pacifically trained to the voice of that particular call assistant there could not be a more clear teaching in this specification


here's what it says it says patten owners arguments and explanations on secondary considerations are three paragraphs that contain virtually no substance the first paragraph is legal or boilerplate the third paragraph is a generic conclusion the second paragraph is at best a list of


it wasn't caused by therefore that's whether you call it primary or secondary that that the issue in both cases is causation is not the issue is cause ation but they say there's no causation but you can't reach the level of cause ation unless


have a relatively straightforward case really turns on testimony directly from the named inventor and that's wrong going to start them started appendix eight thirty for the record there was testimony from


is this is one of them for is several different types of trainings i believe that this one this one contract was not signed however he did receive all of his training and he has


invalidity it doesn't prevent any any new party from challenging the validity of a patent so i think their argument that somehow that the decision by the subsequent decision by examiner the rose or the district court decision or a


well on the public rights exception side where you are the private rights exception site and therefore article three is or isn't invoked but in milliken there is no recognition that this distinction even exists if the it's not mentioned in the


in none of their cases do they cite any in any decision which permits this kind of collateral attack on the face of the assignment so notwithstanding mr


but you may not have that now for six months or in some cases i gather years and years because you see these things keep getting extended and we are legally barring you from doing that that's why it's not quite physical but it's kind of the next best thing it's


all the characters taking your letter know when we file our case we know that the railroad only had an easement for road purposes we go through the priest so don't know whether it's a temporary taking our permit it takes in less there's already a trace agreement


p the owner at the time of the filing of the lawsuits that were before judge yes no please the court that is ruling that we thought it was asserted to bring to the court's


and we discussed why i think that's inconsistent with the court's other subsidiary findings but specifically with respect to penalty the government mentioned generals who are several times the government investigated general clark cigars taking a loss as to these specific


thing that's in the thirteen words relates to the primarily in a plain character of the surround french and that is all that is the only character that is necessary to decide people and so that's what we argued everything else there was in our


discuss the council indicated the can the dispute here is whether the claim is properly limited to this primarily in a play and structure and the intrinsic evidence certainly does not support that as some


no request for money damages here the requests for petitioners right to meet his burden for jurisdiction before the board petitioner is being withheld from even being able to meet his burning has his burden to


this material on what people were doing in the field is not part of a proceeding before the patent trademark office but it's certainly true that forty years is not considered it would be a new law that assumed the four years was you know the


the board is not free to van gogh take the priority record and create their own case of on patentability and that's what happened with that section of trump tower it was never cited for the purpose of that section of the independent


is should be decided on a case by case basis and while it is our position that the sales that were used were in the ordinary course of trade the statutory provision that was applied does not even reference sales in the ordinary course of trade


on you could you is that a new device if you're saying that because telephone there is no such thing as a new button on a telephone i would disagree with that there is there are no buttons on telephones a call appearance button can have many


your position is one of your positions that you are not obligated to provide that information to contractors it's not in the regulations it's something by email someone told you that you could do


exhibits a significant price difference than that group passes the cones detest and i think that's that's important to know in the context of these two cases being for before the court together because the differences in the test is what result for example of a much higher


to meet three points that only relate to the important issues of claim destruction methodology at the heart of this appeal first the parties agree that this is not a situation where you have a plain meaning in the clean language and you're


please the court could morning this more than ten year old case brings me back and i feel your honor that we should be on almost a first name basis this point my name is laura two second i'm counsel for real estate alliance called


institute or grounds and specifically with respect to the board relying on it they did make a factual finding that the comp reference does disclose the conversion rate of about fifty three fifty four percent but the error that the


that's you know that's not appropriate because later references do disclose an incomplete conversion and specifically the fifty three and fifty four percent for the board it's saying is that the


raised here you're familiar with praxair in general yes judge you know we do not believe that there is a one on one issue here in view of the fact that there is more than just a thought process that involved this is


was some sort of conduct and tanaka internal conduct an internal deliberation prepared in the context of a potential settlement that really had no idea about it until discovery after after it you know so that brings us to the point one


throughout the whole job to have these barges in that area and that was an unreasonable assumption it was pointed to language on the drawings these are on the drawings of the growing and on the brake orders


to the greater than ninety nine percent purity and that the invention is the understanding that it's the oxidation stuff and it's the nature of the mixture that the isis self and blue is present and that allows you


that gives it a greater degree of reliability than you would have without that put in i would submit that in under the circumstances of this case that that something more then the internal police


cooperated in filt full fully in this case he fought the cooperated with astronomically positive results and we therefore recommend consistent with what we should do as a


was described there the other point that i wanted to raise is are these arguments the really been interviewed by them they were for there's an issue there where they were first raise i mean i'm talking about the in opening appeal before the piece out there


product is prior art and it was known back when the initial p c t s location was filed what the very nordic should have done at that point was first file claims for protecting that building block itself the


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


hiring providers of personal service on contracts circumvents the civil service law and that section says except as off writing shall not do it they were supposed to hire us under the


was impermissible construction and we weren't really interpret in a language continuous wrote in itself says this is what we understand continuous to be when there is an effect of on going employment contract and such years i knowledge


claims two through five so if we're gonna go by what's in the specification with respect to the temperature limitation then we're going to be reading all of these dependent


what should the board do when it's applying brought us reasonable interpretation in the context of a means to this function limitation when it's trying to understand identify what the course by structure is so if there is an application for cross reasonable interpretation and where


would make a difference whether that's a symmetrical or not in fact that's actually what they're arguing with respect to if you look at figure two i don't know what the lens of you know there's only two two sites that are shown for the column it or i don't know what the


of those columns it talks about how it's only the data that's changed that's supplied to the subscriber and then if you go on through columns twelve and thirteen the path it's


understand it let's assume that it's you you have a point at regions one two and three and that's the structure you can show based upon your particular suspicion whatever they're of that you have and they were preclude it from showing


of existence twenty three seventy seven and if their decision and their conduct in this case is sustained that we might as well repeal that statute because this is the classic example of


apparent desire to make this case go away now did it did a lawyer write that or or did your client similarly on page thirty two you criticize the district court as


ninth twenty sixteen there was no appeal filed has to make a products and are known work out as of that date there are over one hundred thirty four days late in filing their notice of appeal in january twenty seventh and this court


time in making arguments and that goes for both sides so we spend a lot of time going through the briefs this is a supposed to be a half hour yes run and then you both come here either disavowing everything except that are saying it's unnecessary or saying you're not


conference and it was answered and and all that it's not just my client the p f a asked if they could go back and take more accurate measurements of the specific area saying that it became something other than an estimate


to affirm the board's decision i want to take a step back for a moment because it's important to put claim one into perspective to correct something that counsel stated at the beginning of his argument he stated that it was the


there you can actually see what's their master production records in their amended and he specifically says maximum box suspension time is not more than four days so even though they're saying they're briefing which


think is your friend on the other side with their strongest argument as is the board found that conserving storage space in the run was really the motivation to put the two together that's correct it's not exactly how i understood you


nonpolitical to get up out of the water into a water skiing position the parties talked about this in with the hypothetical while the weekender a middle


didn't my point is and this is where we started with judge day at the very beginning of your argument we were asking did you in fact argue for just a single dimension to be included in the construction of


i suppose that the original markman hearing this issue had been right wouldn't she have been obligated to resolve it then she would be obligated to construe the claim at then or at whatever point in time she was to construe the claim


you didn't have a chance to develop that discovery is that right we had no opportunity whatsoever discovery discovery works at least close to us as to everything except for the standard question rather


said right that our expert explained wouldn't have wouldn't have told told you anything about a steroid all emotion versus suspension result and then these other references about emotions versus


the world i don't recall ever seeing a kind of contempt for sitting that does that and in fact that's i think it's exactly that reason that results in our case law saying none of this is not the way we run contempt here so what i will say is that the order that


pieces instead of following the book that feels like retooling to me but in the context of this claim language where all you have to do is answer the question whether the position of that lego blocks can be adjusted along the longitudinal axis it doesn't specify the


examples that they give in footnote twelve and in the text one is the nation's bank case that was merely a letter from the control controller it wasn't a rule making decision making it was simply a letter from the comptroller that was


decision appendix twenty to you in the board's decision both are a direct quote of sanchez and you know what they say is that pain alone without it diagnosed or identifiable underlying disability does not in and of itself


it's based on a part of london and page twenty eight that was never asserted and i know it's very confusing your honor but was never asserted for any of the other claims and it wasn't even raised by cisco for the other claims so it's not a bar to considering so this


it's attempted to go to market with its product that the the vendors who create the software the whole stack location were jealous of their data structures and but data structures and


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


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


can't just simply say that there is a reliable basis for extrapolating again it doesn't matter whether there's p p p the fact that there wasn't the fact that you wouldn't perhaps be indicative meds or worse what you would need is something like those arranging clinical studies and here of course you have the


of the society of automotive engineers dealing with watercraft says there are four solutions and actually in the interim report it was roger's scoops frogger re application and one other by the time


pieces of prior virtually every element of the claim says this was the second is ok it for nine which is the challenger manual which says in a single paragraph what's missing which is no doubt that the


as a burden productions and the burden of proof it's my understanding burden of proof is the persuasion burden ultimately states at all times with you well is that your understanding as well i think so ok and so the only question is who has the burden of initially coming forward is it


well what the board said was the its decision was that computer implementation wasn't required correct and that hardware implementation would count did they far into the hardware


satisfy the concerns of due process have no doubt the only chance you have a prevailing in this case is if i decide that they waive this argument for purposes of appeal by virtue of not having objected after the court issued its order because i


circumstances but not in the us because they didn't give us enough information so that's your only chance of prevailing and i say that to you so that hopefully you and your clients will understand in the future that you can't turn something like this over and and believe that it is


on the y axis so generally as the corrected mass flow rate goes up the pressure ratio generally goes up and what you seeing as the red line is the stall boundary if the fan exceeds that line you get


to make it clear that it relates to the fan we defined operating line as you can you help me out of one yes you're on one thing and i so if you go back to where you started twenty five before the paragraph for which is a yes the key


created the terms specifically in the submission it's at appendix thirty three zero nine in those two lines which they called either target operability line or operating running are exactly like the two operating lines


and i think any fair reading of that claim would indicate to want to skill in the art that the identifiable fields in the fields are not one in the same and in fact it's clear that some of the information from the identifiable


registration it's possible that you might decide to now open up a wins in alaska right next door right and that's the problem the concern isn't what you're at each doing in the respective markets you're in now and have been doing for the last thirty years but if


that there is nothing and in fact that was what our motion to dismiss was based on these contradictory conflicting allegations and sixth circuit law the case of bailey versus an arbor set internally


was completed forty eight hours later and the article was accepted for publication that's actually not correct what happened is the article submitted within forty eight hours the journal except they recognized it as being newsworthy but that's


point seven zero four of the far and among other things it says here's the form that should be enough has to take it has to be signed it has to have an expiration date and it has to include clear and convincing evidence to support the


ranges in the formulation of the patents and suit fell within those ranges and so this court's range case law i think both sides have argued different aspects of that case law this court's range case law is


and start quoting us to all that evidence may think we should just disregard it i'm not saying you should disregard the the other evidence but that other evidence doesn't point to if you will to choose the surprising result you have to remember is the increasing


in their proposal in every single year of all of the potential out years of this contract but they also included the sentence that seized upon a dying corps which is to say if a contracting officers


regularly published set of proceedings with a continuous set of volume numbers one after another right there it's not a there's no evidence that it's like a journal like a monthly journal or a quarterly journal like how i typically think of a


guarantee that not only was it published on a given day but it was actually somehow publicly disseminated by that date and that just feels like a lot of make work and it doesn't really make any common sense so


patentable and if you look at d d r this case is right on top of d v r and d v r there was one advance internet users in d v r would be on clicking around looking i get to a website i'm at that website and now i


case as it relates the claim construction issue


application so it would be activated from a central location in the network these that's the way it was described and the paths in what sense is the either the network or any of the client


directed to an abstract idea that's not saved by any sort of technological advance in the specifically claims of quite broad right i mean the claims are incredibly broad ground all right and what was the other patent


expert testimony indeed the fact it's called an access card in the used to log into the system i e another sign and not single sign and i think that's where you have issues so if the reference is completely silent i'm not here to say


pursuing the case in light of public interest and that sort of thing your honor also the other thing that i'd like to bring up is that you know there was some discussion about the specification of of


backing up a little bit is there a sliding scale of how much evidence you have to put on for fame depending on where you're beginning what your market is whether it's something unique to begin with or whether it's something that's less distinctive i wouldn't say that


any court or the board has written out a sliding scale here's a list of evidence you need to show up to the senate both suggested you needed to get outside sales and advertising budget i would say that there's a sliding


whether the preamble is limiting is the question of what is what is the construction of that preamble i think just just because of the fact that we're talking about increasing survival and we're humans we think well this is this is yes this is what we all need but keep in mind your honor


a level that doesn't mean you're going to they're going to live in all those are those are not surrogates for one another as both part both both experts in this case agree what's what's the what's the difference here is now having having now for the


the the performance of phase two that it was behind in phase two these are factors to be considered in making the lisbet determination and


honor the more disability that you end up that you have the more you can use those disability a stepping stone for higher levels of special monthly compensation so that does affect so that could affect the


you can connect that wire directly to the connector at the end of the tube then if you go to paragraph twenty nine it's as if the conductor member is connected that way there is without the need for a safe separate


another as opposed to coming in at one in the tubing and running through it this is our king over to the side wall and what the this description is talking about is when that happens if you have a mesh the mesh is going to divert


time over this ten year period this employee did not have a college degree let her still continue to work you know that our client was reasonable she was reasonable supervisor to rely on not only this employee's great work her knowledge of the work her


judgment that wouldn't have been needed at all but the rd circuit where this case originates follows the st restatement of judgments from nine hundred and forty two and that rule as the th circuit explained in the hicks case forces a losing litigant to take an appeal it


as holdings and that's that's why we're here your honor because we we didn't want to get to a situation where if we didn't appeal in this case and then went through the nd case and were found has been precluded that this court might have said well you should've


reasonable and proper response from the examiner should have bit of this because the examiner saw that the inventor had already defined strap splitter as having two slots one longer


be a consistent with the purpose of the invention to eliminate that second number even though i b m does go part of the way to reducing the contents of that think you have accurately stated their position ok


about the fact that the army lacked the necessary resources to provide military escorts for transport vehicles provided by k b r and its contractors the army was fully aware that the total number of


cd interest provision in there because there's a penalty of paying extra money the longer this takes one of the key reasons why in twenty thousand we're still talking about events from one thousand sorry still talking about events in two thousand and three is because


that article if we give it any thought at all we realized that article could only have been formed by the government it only could have been breached by the government it only could have been enforced by the government there's no other party who has the


they suggested that simply if an employee works on the reservation all other time concert penchant purposes at other times they suggest that article twenty nine of the m e p p and only article twenty nine embodied the terms of the contract


servers without reordering the ports you would not be able to find the application the chat application and smart clients therefore we submit that there actually is substantial evidence there is evidence that supports the notion that ports are


i reserve the right to consider that further the appropriate time


try to make all the rules uniform so that the rules of the architect of the capitol are a much different than the capitol police rules then the library of congress is rules and for the most part the rules are by regulation or by the collective bargaining


one twenty two there is no ability for the us c p or the employee to challenge the arbitrator's decision that means that the arbitrator's decision would be final and binding on the parties and there would be no


identified and so therefore it falls within the scope of the single margin limitation and and can include multiple purchases so and is and is after a point on which i may have misunderstood this mr greenspan said


nine percent is essentially the same as one hundred so it covers ninety nine percent or above and that's the way they claim limitation rates


asserted and in fact to the standard here there's a high burden to overcome the statute of limitations when the writing is lost new york courts have been very thorough on that the only time they really allow an exception is when someone was there


sanctions in this case is not an abuse of discretion it's hard to see when a denial would ever be an abuse this is the poster child case for the overly aggressively filing of losing claims


avoiding a government payment that was material to the government our brief set forth that pollutes complaint does not and can never meet the statutory requirements we brief


gauged allegedly in some bad conduct with a i g later in two thousand and five the new york state attorney general sued a i g a i g settled a lawsuit in two thousand and six without disclosing the unrelated bad conduct


that it has committed had committed eight i agreed to give an independent entity control of its books and records a i g agreed


warranty or what did they do and what did your client do i believe my client did not do anything meaning in whatever way was returned if it was a check he did not passion but i believe it was not a check it was either a credit card


was an issue about the armenian passport at the first hearing before a judge for us to clear it up in the second hearing which at forest his army a passport is expired i think in two thousand and three what age was he when he came here to fifteen years old hell does he know


scheme and part of your answer seemed to be well everyone else involved and that's been arrested so he doesn't have access anymore to fraudulent think that's true the the the the proof that the government put forward was that there was a there was another hearing in


same on the same token if he knows that deportation is the result of the case and he he were to flee and then be away from his family and children right that it's not they're being kicked out of the u s necessarily although this is been his home since he's been fifteen years old that is


detailed analysis of why his discussion with officers in the hospital he's the victim they went to the hospital they met with him he explained how they tried to pressure him to circle his friend donald dobro so as the shooter in this case he


we quire mit's why isn't it reasonable for the district court without even looking at the knowing about prior studies that have been attached to an earlier complaint or in a different complaint why isn't entirely plausible for the


different test similarly the other cases that refers to in its briefs outside of the circuit do not apply the second circuit's test which has been very consistently applied over many many years through sokol through ross


with business or transaction of an organization government or agency in connection with is much broader language then within the scope of war on an official act and in fact in boyland the parties


from information misrepresenting the name of the center just like in universal there was frost false claim information was submitted but the entry wasn't fraudulent because it wasn't an authorized the wasn't didn't gain entry by saying i'm the president not somebody else


situation if the security the money was standing in a pile in a vault and only the bank's president could get in the security guard said oh there's the bank's president i'm going to let him into the vault and let him take the money that's the kind of situation that's covered by this provision not just an


offenses people who have a green cards can leave the country and come back yes your honor people who have green cards could could stay in the country without being deported who commit minor offenses of this car and so your he's in a category where he could leave


for this individual a waiver he was considered for a waiver under two twelve eight h your honor yes and he didn't meet that for two reasons as set out in and i am happy to summarize them but the


the union member of the employee in this case after the grievous was filed the union did appear indeed in degree events they took it throughout the steps one two or three days in one and so forth and eventually they appealed to arbitration just before betray sion


signed it there were certainly no terms left to be agreed upon and certainly different from what the bankruptcy court found or found with experience with these kinds of agreements


of witnesses to the judge in this bench trial in fact we brought up all of the relevant witnesses some of whom are here today as well the judge after the after a bench trial issued very extensive


is contemplated in june to be created in the certainly in existence by september it is the the vessel if you will through which the joint venture is to proceed and the contract between


foreseeable to the defendant that the conspiracy involved one hundred grams or more i would also point to some of the cases cited by the district court though i think they support the government's argument for example navarette aguilar which is an out of circuit


to this imposition the imposition of this sex patient sex offender treatment program as one of the reasons the court could rest assured that mr washington would not see judge


individual secondly that be true of the shoulder related injury well if we look at the doctors know it's the doctor said if we if we accept your interpretation of the


giving you the information you need to know whether you are complying with the statute when it is proper there's been no argument that the form doesn't get didn't give mr lockhart enough time or any other employee


actually explicitly embrace the zone well i believe so let me first say if not this is a great opportunity to do that but i believe that in the louima


scenario where they're being told by the the board of governors the federal reserve and you have actually the worst internal control processes of any bank we've seen of any of your peers and they're being told in and in that instant audit that you're rushing division is the


issue in that case but the point that's primary here is that it indorsed and espoused a clear new york policy in favor of the payment of interest post maturity those are what the words the magic words that are in this indenture and require the


therapists and counselors but that would cause undue embarrassments now the mother admitted at the impartial hearing that she believed the ones who want support in the eye were appropriate so any arguments that they


can only hope access the they don't teach and the reason that this word comprehending is in here is because the evaluation says that the teacher should check in for understanding of the lessons taught understanding comprehending


so for instance if the state of connecticut decided to drop the charges against a respondent i think and then inquire as to well even though they didn't pursue charges against this


believe possibly it's i think it's difficult to tell from the record whether the immigration judge was attempting to enquire about whether there was some evidence of non concessional consensual conduct


explored by agency just because that claim was not preserved and then now before this court and petitioners brief it was not clear that he was explicitly testing or pushing the boundaries whether or not the misrepresentation was


questions show there are ample questions of fact around each of those pieces of evidence maybe a fact finder could properly hold for the government on some of those questions but at this stage before this court


court is equally capable of it's one sentence that's at issue right that the answer is yes you want to second guess them on their conclusion that they are awarded is ambiguous yes because what appeared to happen doesn't that seem contrary


recapture the arbitration was in two thousand and fifteen and this all happened i know that but that and that's part of the problem because it took so long there are all kinds of other problems lincoln paid as premiums a year in advance and lincoln also had roll


their agency shop the pairs were paying the union for their bargaining services they were required by law to do that have an opportunity to object to the use of their fees for certain purposes not for collective bargaining no they have no


of what would your argument be there that we would agree is protected by the freedom of association because different because all five thousand and ten of the members the five thousand black members in ten white members were deval made a


claim and i believe that this first appeared in the defendant's response to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment that these agency fee payers affirmatively state that they don't want to be part of the union that that is just not


in italian law that says producer only gets the rights as what he needs to produce the film composer keeps all the rest so that's the start that's should be the starting point for analysis of ok what are we doing here where


well you get there when one of the question so would it be constitutional for congress to say we're going to commission the a c l u to bring lawsuits on behalf of anybody that it thinks is having his or her first amendment rights violated


said we're using these scarce resources just borrowing whether we have the authority to bring claims on behalf of other people and we really prefer if you could make that much clearer and congress through their testimony in one


also sought the idea that if you're going to declare the statute to be unconstitutional that someone should be able to be notified if they're being placed under guardianship from o'shane there's a similar request to stop the state


individual and the individual prevails presumably the federal court would have continuing jurisdiction action and did an injunction it would have the same it would raise the same younger problem


in exchange for other property or the only other way he could realize game here is was he relieved from a liability you know property if you dealing with the exchange of property for other property that's handled under


duty in the ice travel handbook provides information their direction to go to where wearing it at appendix two sixty where where it sets the fifty mile the fifty fifty mile occasion


describes the process as running a pressure check if a pressure problem is is detected the manual instructs the user to inspect the equipment rule out an equipment malfunction if they can't rule out an equipment malfunction


in diagnostic code fifty to seventy six and while there are instances in which if a veteran for example has some sort of unlisted condition under form point two zero one thirty eight c f r the v a may look


right to obtain repair parts and that protects the manufacturers and distributors of the repair parts including new world if the case law is we cite kendall but that also cites standard haven's heroin thompson


case involving the knitting machine and knitting needles that decision agan which was subsequently approved by the supreme court in the morgan envelope case says that that exhaustion does not extend to


i'm sorry i'd like and context you know i was in the justice department for a few years and we see justice department work i bet they're working more than forty hours a week can't be that they are forbidden by statute to work


that will kill all of these stem cells in the bone marrow and if and therefore the patient will die if there is not a re transplantation and the therefore the method of treatment requires


twenty minutes til it's part of the issue in the in the subpoena this these two statements say that there is an example at twenty minutes operating at forty hertz and dr got of said there is no example twenty minutes at forty homes so


excuse me i see i gave the wrong i'm sorry your honor i gave you the wrong cite that's myra the written response in the record


given object inside of a file as opposed to approval to access to the files all correct because you could have it the binary object is just you know as we've spoken about just splitting up the file in to various pieces


a field that says ok for these you know for forty different binary objects yes user a has access or maybe you know whatever user has access to is not listed there so therefore user a does not have access and is not authorized to to


things up at their server or sending stuff down and then there is all this talk about what the quick method is doing that happens to be own or in the hands of somebody else but not what that somebody else is doing and i took it that your first point is


peculiar in the way it was always from our perspective and so we were pressing legitimately to have that review by the on by a panel or or by the supreme court so from our perspective the first moment that the appeal this case was actually moot


case that we're talking about here they start with nation questions i don't see any facts anywhere in the picture this is all legal analysis of there is no point where i thought anything other cases a little bit later there might have been facts