thank you your honor may please the court tom schmidt on behalf of the retailer defendants kmart an artist and finger fast this case against the retailer defendants was exceptionally weak from the start and only weakened as the case progresse

no laws that's true your honor we think that was a clear error of judgment abuse of discretion is deferential to be sure but it's not doesn't mean a case is unreviewable and in fact since time mark this court has reversed district courts exceptional case determinations in

opposing party has tonight we just opposed state petition is opposing the state just in the basis for when you turn your honor not not alone we think that the strongest bases are first of all the what we think of the frivolous claim construction

position that they adopted and then not giving up the case when it would have been reasonable to do your honors opinion in a long we think is most directly on point there your honor said of course abuse of discretion it is a differential standard but there is a threshold below which you claim

was hardly any argument even in support of it i think there was a single sentence in in their opposition to several judgement which just said it was a jury issue that pointing to any any evidence and even on the merits had they developed it more it would have been we just well because it basically

one of the key limitations of the patent which was the claim fourteen of the patent which was the manner in which the side rails of the of the slides perform so we think again you know in the mind run of cases it's not going to be appropriate to reverse but there is a threshold below which it isn't reasonable enough

that it is appropriate and we think this this case is below the threshold and so maybe i could just talk about my claim fourteen for a moment and that and the claim construction dispute to keep the dispute just to refresh your memory

what's the meaning of the word baffle and the question was whether the apple had to be entirely inside the body of the flight of the slide or could be partially external and there's nothing in the claim language that directs you that answers that question we think there is your honor because what the claim

garbled that a little bit the idea is it has to interconnect the base in the upper surface so it can't be part of the upper surface and and i would point your honor to the specification so that the patent itself is is that the end of the open

languages that apple has to interconnect the base and the upper surface it cannot include that part which itself is labeled the upper surface and it's just not almost every case comes before us as it has a difference of opinion on cl

is such a case that the claim language interconnecting the bass in the upper surface of the claim language also requires the battles to perform a specific structural function which is maintaining the inflatable body in which shape and only the internal part of

week playing construction position and enough to render the case exceptional now after and after this report's martin ruling of the we continue to oppose summary judgment as we discussed without a viable infringement there in fact its own expert conceded

trial and moved to move to dismiss only two weeks before after a lot of expensive preparation it happened the case was actually dismissed one week before trial but after motions eliminated been filed and we think that the factor that weighs in favor of the case being exceptional again one

the lanham act side of the case the only i want to say there is just that there were a number of standards percolating in the courts the fields for the lanham act standing at the time this case was filed and we think the fact that that view was claim to standing still so clearly under all three and even under the supreme

in which judge she tried to process on the panel reminded us that there are two species really an abuse of discretion one where there's a clear air of law or error of law that's been conceded didn't happen here and the second where there's been a clearly erroneous assessment

honor i really want to correct what is a misleading presentation in the reply brief and earlier today about how that came up that you have to understand that the retailer defendants did not move for summary judgment based on this baffles limitation

entirely inside they did not raise this issue at all in their summary judgment papers wal mart released it in their claim construction brief so we responded to summary judgment we argued against the seven or eight arguments that the retailers made

and we won every single one of those arguments once the court's claim construction came out in july now that wal mart has prevailed on a claim construction position adding this limitation entirely inside

quit once but it wasn't perfunctory or baseless it was a five page affidavit by an expert explaining how the drawing was in the patent when the court construe them really matched the walmart product and it was done family products the same

products that they're selling so there's no difference and there was a four page argument in the brief not the judge didn't want but there was nothing wrong with raising it and we also have to keep in mind the timing here this all happened within a couple of months so we

asserted doctor of grievance against the party that raised this issue we lost the issue and the claim fourteen is over by november seventh in their case december third wal mart is within a couple of months of claim construction or so really a standard way to

end i mean this is the rules of the scrap says cost should be awarded bottom line in this case you didn't have to pay any costs doesn't that seem to be contrary to the

directive no your honor here's why i absolutely do retailers as the prevailing parties were entitled to costs but they have to make a showing that they incurred costs and paid cos that's

that's true for anybody right they did not make that shilling they put in a bill of cost that shows every cost that was there was incurred by manley who's the losing part this is all the appendix i've i've

standard the judge supported looked at and said there's no showing here that the retailer to sentence incur costs and pay costs these are managed costs you have to apportion them and the district judge affirmed that and

ok and the fallback position is given a program to share costs well that would be fine if they had incurred or paid any costs and made a showing to the district court of that they did not do that had the authority that they cite is situations where insurance company

an outside party pays for the defendant's costs of course in that situation the defendant still gets to recover those costs here the losing part of the mandate paid for those costs and they've made no showing that they incur cost

so that's the threshold before you get costs yes as a as a as a matter of law as a prevailing party are they entitled to costs yes they are did they make a showing that they've heard costs and paid costs no they did not they put

in bills that manly paid their address to ma'am and the bill of cost i was very clear in the district in minnesota it's as if you've got multiple parties on one side winners and losers you have to support you have to make some showing

and it also is clear that says right in the bill of cost and this makes sense we can't award costs more than once we only award one set of possible a judge award seven hundred thousand dollars to my client the viva because we won the

judgment against manly and were awarded attorneys fees and costs for man's conduct in the case so that's that's the constitution hasn't been any show and there's no authority anywhere that a defendant who's a winning party can

recover cost paid by the losing party if i could turn back to the standard of you i didn't want to lose the point i thought was persuasive so what we have here is there is no showing of

you're on the server familiar but that's not appropriate under higher but to take it a step further the court's judgment has to be so it came to speed right or wrong has to be so wrong that's abuse of her discretion if we look at claim fourteen which

really the focus of the argument this was the standard claim construction argument that we see in most patent cases the patent t my client a viva argue that the word baffle should be given

ordinary meaning as a check between the upper surface of the lower surface to keep the product in its wedge shape we argue that based on philips the court's precedent and dictionary definitions wal mart are not these retailers they didn't think of

this wal mart said judge what you should do is you should add a limitation to something and you add a limitation it says that baffles got to be entirely inside the inflatable body now the argument is made

in this court that our position was objective we base was because their claim language required that to be that baffle to be entirely inside the inflatable body and that's just that's that it just doesn't follow the judge

reasoned and the question is do we have an argument that it's not questions about whether you're right or wrong but the judge reason that this side baffled d could not be a baffle because it was

partly out externally and the judge said well that doesn't attach the base to the upper surface of the upper surface see well that just doesn't live simply fall that's not correct the baffle

d is attached to upper surface the at the side it's supporting the wedge shape by being attached to the side the other problem with councils argument is if north claim fourteen claim fourteen says that you

raise the side baffle and the side wall to form a psych rail and the language when we get to the right exactly

so you raise the side baffle you raise the sidewalk to make the side rail such that the upper surface comprises a pair of cyberattacks so now this is the upper surface two so our

argument which seems to me to be a reasonable ordinary argument is that baffle the whole say can the side baffle connex the summers of a z and this upper surface a and it's doing what it's supposed to in the claim the claim

required showing make and then the other argument that was made in the briefing not really addressed here is we're fighting about what the drawings mean and i would just remind the court that if your audience and your colleagues have many times cautioned us to be careful about the

drawings they're not meant to be exact precise depictions of space or dimension but we think if we try to put in the papers the drugs actually supported us they think they support them you know and i think that's a fair grounds for argument but

the one thing that is clear in the law is a drawing of a single body that is not enough to read in a new imitation into that so that's really that's really pushing for t v and i wanted to address the commentary about claims

slides and makes an obvious argument that you combine those two pictures together and you've got obviously this problem that should have been so clearly us that we never should've brought the case in the first place that argument was not made to the

district court it was not made on summary judgment it was not made in the feet petition it has never been presented to the district court and in the reply brief the assertion is made that well we didn't have to really say all

this in the in the feed petition because the judge knew all this already that's a false statement you need to understand that's not true the judge had never been presented with that evidence and never looked at those drawings

title to go to trial on claims eighteen nineteen we had an interim decision from the patent office that was not favorable but we still have the right to appeal so we had a choice to me and after the summary judgment ruling out playing fourteen we immediately

be reached up to walmart and over the course of a very short time few weeks settled while they are not here today we attempted the same process with these retailers who are represented by the same counsel that represented manly

the party and its with sanctions to have a default judgment of over a million dollars for litigation is comped and our counsel of eva's counsel tried to approach the retailers knowing that there is no way that they could ever

settle the case would make they've had to go direct to the retailers and that was rebuffed it didn't work and so prevention late after this all happened all of them a few weeks of either drop the case now there's kind of a fundamental inconsistency

that runs throughout the entire papers this is supposed to be some terrible thing that we put these retailers through for a month or two three get ready for trial instead of dropping it you know sort of immediately after playing fourteen was

dismissed because planes eighteen and nineteen weren't worth as much well if that's the case then why didn't they ever put in any evidence that they had sales that would have been easy to do and why what

it would really be spending money to get ready for trial if they had no infringement liability because they had made any sense it doesn't make any sense it's just a would need to drag this case out and make it harder for my client who's

sells waterslides manly sells waters it's the retailers are falsely advertising manley's waterslides in their stores because the false advertising is the pictures of the depictions of the products the retailers are falsely

advertising manley's waterslides on their websites again depicting their water supply side by side with our ours is that the retailers actions have more power than manage their actions obviously because

had a reasonable argument we were a competitor we didn't sell very much because we were being destroyed by their false advertising as the district court itself we've the last argument that they make in the reply brief is well you didn't really have any damages

the insurer happens to be a codefendant rather than some other third party so we don't think that the persuasive basis to deny cause i want to briefly address the file history i think perhaps

an orthodontist in the eighth circuit said no there's no preventing standing here you cannot sue the yellow book the yellow book is just the medium of the false advertisement is not the perpetrator of the false advertisement and that's exactly true age and we have here the retailers are not the perpetrator of false

of the retailers doing anything to put themselves and implicitly with mandatory that we think there is clearly no basis for standing the last thing i just want to say is high mark of course is the differential standard of use discretion but we think

is a two way street on the one hand and to this court ought to be deferential but on the other hand it behooves district courts to provide some explanation and some and some reasoning to support their conclusions and we think we think the district court simply never

explained why the claim construction position here was not for those never can never explain why it was reasonable to persist as long as as if you did never explain why you could have had a reasonable basis to think it had standing we think because the district courts

[ t h a n k y o u y o u r h o n o r m a y p l e a s e t h e c o u r t t o m s c h m i d t o n b e h a l f


thank you very much thank you very much your honor may please the court kind of carpenter appearing on behalf of mr kevin george the error of the veterans court in this case was its reliance upon this court's decision in jordan although this court's

decision in jordan was based upon a change in the law this court's decision in jordan does not apply to this court's decision controls and there was no change in the law as a result of this court's decision and wagner

the a v does not apply either your honor because the wagner case does not represent a change in the law the jordan case does represent a case of a change in the law and if mr george's allegation of

said and that it was so such a clear understanding the law that it was the true state of the law at the time of the initial decision do i understand that correctly y

done i think you simply recognize it for what it is as this court did in jordan this court recognizes that the v a s general counsel had corrected the mistake in interpretation made by

the secretary when he promulgated that regulation he issued a presidential opinion which invalidated that regulation because the secretary's interpretation was in direct conflict with the plain and an a

analysis of what it was that the statute said and if the statute was as this statute is so unquestionably plain on its face that there were two

specific requirements imposed by congress upon the secretary before the presumption of soundness could be rebutted then the interpretation or the plain language

of the statute controls and supersedes any interpretation that would have been made by the secretary to the contrary but i would also suggest your honor that your concern is is i don't wan

founded but but less likely to come up in the future simply because the facts of this case are such that we have a judicial interpretation

unquote the initial interpretation of section one hundred and eleven and so therefore our court treated that regulation as an official interpretation

resulted in denying mr jordan a cue claim in that instance because changes in interpretation of the law are outside the scope of what can be considered a valid claim

honor i agree with everything that you said i simply differentiate that the interpretation that was made by the secretary in his regulation was the

the that was the regulation for v a q rather than b v a q which was discussed in da v and then was found to be a valid regulation based

upon that change in the language the question here mr mr carpenter again quite follow what you said and i want to make sure i do understand what you're saying are you saying that there is some kind of

same oh yes they are your honor and they are to be applied the same way what i am saying is is that the prohibition that exists in those two regulations about change in the

law applies when you attempt to make an allegation of q as was done in jordan based upon that change in the law that is not what mr george's allegation of

it be imputed to have been as the veterans court did mr george's allegation of q was based soley upon the failure of the

between really bad interpretations of the statute and then fair but ultimately deemed incorrect interpretations of the statute all we said there was there that regulation that the v a had

a change in interpretation of that stature and in jordan we said you cannot get a q through that change in interpretation and in fact as i understand the

where you want to get to under these circumstances

honor i think that the my response is to part st i would respectfully disagree with the characterization of what happened in jordan and jordan really wasn't about what happened in one thousand one hundred and eleven jordan was soley about what happened with the

regulation itself the only issue the only allegation is q and that was that the regulation one invalidated it that invalidation was retrospectively the court in jordan didn't pass at all

ignored the nd half of the statute in fact if you look at the ratings decision at issue here it's clear that they didn't apply the statute at all they required as an int of stablish ing in service aggregation which is not

a new cause of action it creates a new entitlement benefits and that's clearly not what happened here one thousand one hundred and eleven has not changed and wagner's interpretation of it although in our opinion is not entirely relevant to the

it won't apply to cases where the judgment final judgment has been entered so i hope you understand the important question which is really that should should we have to look for express intent from congress in a

decision then you know that would be a change of interpretation so i don't think it's i don't think we need to look for explicit intent from congress here

stated that that there was an initial interpretation and so by guys decision on the interpretation of one thousand one hundred and eleven must be considered a change in interpretation in light of

d the court in this case acknowledged that new interpretations of law only have retroactive effect on decisions open on direct review and do not apply in the context of

specific changing in law but i don't think that's a reference to that militia says that the provisions of the section that is cu

the secretary and the board issued the decisions and martin and george and that valid binding regulation controls the decisions in those cases and a later different

honor there are a couple of places in the decision a

this court and enjoys also acknowledged that where the regulations in place at the time of the original decision imposed a different rule does not apply and

i think there is also arguably distinguishes between sort of the the regular regulatory interpretation versus the statutory interpretation but the court in

regulatory interpretation of the law in contrasted with a regulatory interpretation of just one last quick question i'm just wondering if you're aware of any other

another traditional interpretation of the statute can get retroactively applied to final judgment i don't know if it's something like it could be anything social security benefits criminal law an

congress created a remedial statute there is no reason that the intent of congress should be abrogated by the dispute that has been created by the

of a change in interpretation does not to say that a change in interpretation is not a bar is but the question here goes to whether or not the allegation of q

made exclusively upon the statute can be impeded from being successful because of an action taken by the v a s general counsel to correct a clear mistake by the secretary in writing a

regulation that directly contradicted the plain meaning of the statute as interpreted by this court in wagner and as a result the remedial effect of the intent of congress

needs to be acknowledged and this court needs to reject the impediments to allowing for the remedy of the collateral attack when there is as in this case a decision made

didn't apply the regulation and the government suggests that somehow the regulation applied even though the board never relied upon the regulation the board in fact attempted the rely upon a different statute a statute that

[ t h a n k y o u v e r y m u c h t h a n k y o u v e r y m u c h y o


that occurred to him which he asserted was by the police and his wife was told also that the police were involved in double slaying they knocked on the door and they said it's the police

said that they weren't police the question is what does he mean by that when he says that because he does say several other times in his testimony that they were police and then they threaten him when they tell him not to call the police

ever says that this was a ruse to get me in the door i think other people said that for him because in several other places previously when he was talking to integration officers and in his testimony he says

that they were police and also by the by the way that he expresses himself in the simple ways that he does it it appears very well mean that he said they were police because they weren't wearing police

uniforms not the fact that they were actually police any case they were in league with the police that's accept on the record and so i mean that's that's as far as i really think counted on

any case and we know that they were in league with the police on his wife's of that they will leave with the police and that's what he told the immigration judge and the immigration officers that don't call the police because we're all part of this together so

comes to court there's a mexican case that finds that returning to your being afraid to return to your country after coming to the united states is not a particular social

bark and the immediate g and other cases and the circuit as well to remove that either except now that what happens in mexico isn't true for guatemala because we have to look at

saying again what might be true in one country is not true another mexico isn't one of the case should be right reminded back to the board and a minimum so that and then of course to the immigration judge to to make a new

returned from the united states in are there by perceive

does the trouble in this case is all that all this new stuff about the country particular all came about after his case and evolution so he didn't make that showing he did not

met please the court my name is kate alabama i'm here for the government today and i'm of course prepared to answer any questions about the case that you have including the asylum claim but i what i'd like to start with the cat claim i thought that would be more

important to cover with some thoroughness the reg provides for protection for applicants under the torture convention when future torture is more likely than not and numerous factors go into making that determination

including most importantly the past torture under the applicable regulation the petitioner bears the burden of proof and factual findings by the agency must be upheld unless a contrary conclusion is compelled so to be

torture there must either be state action or there must be acquiescence by the state and the most important point i'd like to make today is that this is not a state actor case we call this the

relocation issue is the way that we would look at it but the i g did reach the issue and unfortunately we didn't present that issue that came that issue in our brief we would be happy to address it

and supplemental briefing but we don't think we need to because we think that the board decision is good based on the on the holding that there's no state action and there's there's no showing of acquiescence right so i guess again i gather your position is there's

misallocation of bird well i think that the i'm not sure it's relevant because actually the i j a found that on the relocation issue based on what was in the record that

misplaced in this case and a lot of maldonado if it if it were that doesn't necessarily mean you lose but but i i'm just trying to get through the threshold question and then you can argue why it doesn't matter i understand your honor and i'm hesitant to say that

findings on the relocation says you are good that they were subsided by the board's opinion because in the last statement in the last for the foregoing reasons and those articulated by the

immigration judge in her decision we affirm the immigration judge's decision so i think that our position is that that does subsume the relocation finding that doesn't then get to your question about whether or not the i j a mistakenly press

whatever stand that but but it depends on through what lens you look at the evidence and where you place the burden so that's why i'm asking so i think that even even if you look at it from the standpoint of

the government's burden the there was evidence of record that the family successfully relocated i understand that i just don't think you've ever answered my first question to

that there is mixed country condition evidence including the state department reports and the newspaper article i don't think it was left off i think that what that substantial evidence standard applies here and that the

agency found that there wasn't enough evidence in in you know the country commission reports or the newspaper articles to show they acquiesced and i think that that that that's certainly a supportable

the case that when a police corruption is a problem the government continues to prosecute corruption but that doesn't deal with all the evidence of for the extraordinary levels of

violence the fact that the police aren't in forcing you know essentially and out of forcing a war and that kidnappings are a problem both and immoral parts of the country as well as as and guatemala

city and that's what all that the all that said about it is here the country background information in the case of our police corruption is a problem the government continues to prosecute it is that a sufficiently adequate

bottom line is that the state department reports as is usually the case are mixed and while there might be some evidence of corruption there's also some evidence of prosecution so i think that where there is

mixed evidence like this i mean there have been cases where the court has said that like for instance in madrigal that there's has been a showing of possible that acquiescence you could

show acquiescence but in that case there was specifically in the facts in the underlying facts some sort of associate sumps some allegation that there was a status of the applicant that

related to the corruption these were former military officers in this case we don't have this this applicant doesn't have any sort of special special or particular status that would make this more of a

that more likely where there would be corruption so i think that the bottom line is he hasn't shown state action and he hasn't shown acquiescence he hasn't met that burden of proof and without that he can't succeed without

particular social group i we do there are cases that i can provide to this court afterwards there's an unreported case from two thousand and ten where returning home olens from the united states who were

i just got an e mail from colleagues saying that we should rely generally on the law to come into court and there is something that you didn't know that you knew you would talk about and you didn't have the courtesy to provide opposing

before you open your mouth in court and raise something like this

it was that attacked him and the citations are to the record to settle that he maintained in this testimony before the immigration judge walk in the door and he

thought they were police in his way of articulating things very well could be i can't overly read his mind but he said they wouldn't look like police when he opened the door even though they said they were police but he

continued while they were in the house that they said that they were the police and there's a state actor there and his wife also said that they told him that they were in cahoots with the police don't bother going to the police so we have more sta

or in cooperation with the group yeah gallagher you know i know that's that was part of your argument but i don't you know just because somebody identifies themselves as a state actor doesn't make a mistake a state actor for the purposes of immigration you know when you're dealing with a

we're stuck with how the police behave and what goes on there and any case i think the court also has a letter that says that when you're when you're dealing with this

with the police the fact that the the board that's said that if the police are in effect of that's one thing but if it's a rogue policeman and these gentlemen assuming they were police were real policem

[ t h a t o c c u r r e d t o h i m w h i c h h e a s s e r t e d w a


morning your honor said robbins on the lawyer for the taxpayers this case is about the taxpayer's right to a fair trial a tax court we maintained he fair trial

but they did miss chen had nothing to do with with after the criminal proceeding after the criminal proceeding she had lots to do with coming up and with the numbers and that the numbers not that i mean she's the one that she's the one that came up with the original numbers and correct

just tell me after the criminal trial and after the criminal matter not trial but the criminal proceedings it was all agreed that there was a diff they owe taxes and they agreed to a fraudulent penalty and what not but then mounts had to be

determined yes correct yes ok and goes back to the i r s yes and somebody makes that determination the determination had previously been made in the context of the criminal case no no no not not just

just who after it went back after the criminal proceeding and they came up with the new amount who did the numbers on the deficiency came from ultimately helen chan

ok she was building off of a fairly substantial effort that predated her and yet when the case right there was a lot went into the criminal prosecution ok but she came up with the numbers that were in that deficiency of the numbers on the notice

deficiency were put on there by helen chance so i thought when she testified that what was happening was that she was relating how she went about coming up with that those numbers that was what the

was yes but if you look at the record that is not what she did when i say that when you say the story you talk about the argument i'm your in the money motion yes as well as the arguments made by the government

somebody had to explain to tax court judge how they came up with with the numbers no they don't in that context is that with the net worth number of numbers on the deficiency notice

yes and they could prevail yes news to me no it's the way it works but here they elected to rebut what we put on with their own data but let me get back to my original point this is i'm going to hit

this because this is important helen chan went way beyond talking about what she did to come up with the numbers on the deficiency noticed and we can see it we've got the proof right here in the record keep in mind i hope everyone has caught this that the

government's theme is all she did was talk about what she did to come up with the numbers on the notice of deficiency that was it nothing else not true true that's the way the tax judge related but

helen chance deficiency number from one nine hundred ninety eight sixty four thousand dollars she changed it during the course of time after the notice of deficient strength she kept grinding the

well that's the those arguments are particularly related to you know whether whether or not delbert was violated right those arguments show that she is operating as an expert

during her trial testimony but what he's saying is there were they would have been permissible she were qualified that's absolutely all right if you say that then and she wasn't qualified you have to show prejudice that well i ho

by shown that in the prejudice is what the prejudice is seen when you look at what happens in a typical tax court case if i may give thirty seconds summary i thought the pose would be she's not

qualified you know the prejudice is the taxpayer is the pride of a series of him very important procedural things that he could take advantage of to help him in his case just like any other case with an expert

absolute word yes that procedural that's my point that's the whole point of this case i know that but that the point i'm getting at for that was while i did so don't have to show prejudice from that violation so i think the prejudice is manifest by the by the fact that we did

going to the qualifications of shown well when you depose them you go not only to qualifications you go to the substance of their analysis we did not have an opportunity a pretrial opportunity to depose that expert on the

substance of her analysis we did not have an opportunity to get a written report which is huge tax court is unique in that regard as far as i know and that and that the respect

within thirty days of trial and most importantly it becomes the direct testimony of the expert it just goes in bone that's direct testimony in the taxpayer gets an opportunity to cross or if the taxpayer puts the expert

and substance i would assume had she been forced to write every pore it would have tracked what she alternately said so yes but now obviously you had an opportunity to cross examine but i suppose

court there's discovery i mean did you get her working papers before we had all the paper had all her papers so you knew what she'd i didn't know what she was going to say no no no but you had her records and the way she did when she worked up the

be an expert is a summary well you knew she was going to be testifying i'd had no no reason to think you should have done the numbers i had no reason to think they would go back on their word and there's nothing i wonder did you have to get the tax court judge's approval to take her

deposition what i have had to i could done in my stipulation you can do it it's not a big deal is the government usually cooperate no matter but there's no reason to do it she's not an

expert why do i want to talk to her she's not a witness she has no historical connection that you know that all caller is a witness yeah they said they're going to cause a summary witness a one thousand and six summary witness which she clearly was not

i soon at a certain point maybe before she was in color early in her testimony you you you made some kind of objection right away yes sir ok now what was the response

nuisance objecting at least periodically because it was totally improper as far as i was concerned i'm entitled to the rules being followed we didn't get it and i want to i can beat this case in a fair fight when i was shot at

court hearing directly from the commissioner of internal revenue as is obvious in this case frank worth pled guilty to intentionally under reporting his single you don't have to go into that we want to know you did this dispute

opinion i'm sorry to have i think did that turn out to be true that the tech court judge did not permit this witness to testify to any opinions whenever during her testimony

legitimate objection that she was straying into opinion territory that pat's court reminded her and basically that the the critical thing to understand here is that there's a different though the answer is than say yes or

not she did not she explained what she did and the tax court can take it or leave it the tax court is itself an expert on tax law and the distinction between a criminal tax prosecution

and the deficiencies proceeding in the tax court is that specialized knowledge which is the category of testimony referred to again section seven a one for of the federal rules for lay testimony so you cannot

thing than specialized knowledge and the specialized tax court where the judges themselves have specialized knowledge and judge lab or there's credentials around packable they're available publicly on the

its website he knows very well the difference between the criminal rules and the civil tax rolls because he was the tax assistant to the solicitor general of the united states and in

the tax court judges have been reversed on occasion but by my point is that the baseline for specialized knowledge in the task court is way above the heads of a the civil jury and when

here he admitted the revenue agents testimony purely to explain what she did not for the truth not for an expert opinion on whether the methodology was correct but just presented the information so that

method was appropriate that's all within the province of the the tax court to the son she presented her asked him at and the task or can take it or leave it task or can accept the taxpayer's number or the commissioner's number or

come up with something in between but he says you could have just presented your case by offering the notice of deficiency and and rested that right i think that would be a risky litigation s

the commissioner has to present something because of that specialized burden of production and in this case when the commissioner had to put yet to present some evidence to show that you were relying on the net worth than that it was a proper this was a

proper case to rely on the net worth method in the blank missioners you the tax court may disagree right but that was your position that's how you calculated the deficiency and you said we did that because this is an un report there

mean is that is a net worth method reflected on the deficiency notice not on its face but all of the information the spreadsheets the summaries the foundational documents were provided at least a year and

a half possibly two years in advance of the time now there were specific tax payer to relax parents representative and he found a status report in july of two thousand and eleven which is more than two years before the trial indicated that he had received a huge

requires the parties to it's sort of a settlement procedure to get together and figure out what they can agree on and then to narrow the issue so that only they legitimately just speeded items

postponed but just her name was on the witness list is that what you're saying nothing else about

worth position or not yes that that was revealed that she would be the representative of the commissioner to explain the deficiency number

that so it's possible maybe the taxpayer was never informed that this witness would be testifying to the commissioners network calculations and bottom line i can tell you generally what happens when there's a deficiency

determination and then to send out there's an administrative procedure that can be followed where the taxpayer are faced represented by counsel the taxpayer is representative can communicate directly with the revenue agent to at that level try to resolve the

issues and then there are then that the case could go to the i r s office of the peals which is another sort of settlement resolution opportunity and then the task or trial is sort of the the taxpayers put up or shut up moment to

present his own evidence because all of this evidence you have to remember is within his personal knowledge well they don't know the evidence you know how the commissioner gets to the net worth calculation is not within the taxpayers

worth but obviously you can come up with a different number i stand corrected your honor the tax payer's person has personal knowledge of his actual income during the period and what happens is the tax court is

taxpayer told about you know the commission it was net worth calculations before you get into court all of those spreadsheets which show the allocation show the treatment of everything were produced

yes there are there is no surprise spreadsheets presented at the trial and that's produced a profit hole long before trial in this case possibly as long as two

years before this trial definitely within about a year and a half before and are those disclosed figures you know substantially what that what this expert testified to in court

trial yes and where there were changes there were some minor changes which which were identified at the very beginning of the trial and all of the changes were based on refinements from

is an i r s employee who was a slow motion just a revenue agent that which is yes she's a revenue agent but she had no other job description while she had i mean that her job description is

and the record at the beginning of her testimony but what her role was in this particular case was she was assigned after the conclusion of the criminal case and there was a plea agreement in which frank worth agreed to cooperate

with the i r s and the civil examination of his tax liabilities not to challenge the evidence gathered in the criminal investigation not to challenge its use in that civil investigation she was assigned at that

point to do the math for the commissioner we had it and mission that the returns were incorrect that income from white sands was not reported accurately

and frank worth was on notice at that time that a similar civil exam is proceeding what's not in the record in this case in the civil area is what happened between so the thirty day

letter period which is a notice the taxpayer that even precedes the notice of deficiency that alerts the taxpayer that this is coming and it's an opportunity that sort of resolve things before you even get the notice of deficiency point and then

what she did was very straightforward there are no numbers to add up i was it will fall on very easily all right thank you thank you

didn't just sit there and say there was nothing we wheeled up two hundred thousand secondly beam there was a question from one of your honor's about whether any of the objections were were sustained

i can't remember a single one if it was it was collateral it wasn't what we're talking about here they were all over

the the net worth from that well i guess we're past that i think you've got to be an expert to do a net worth math and i'm sorry there's nobody in this room that can do one without special training i

can't even do it i've been working on this stuff for thirty eight year the revenue agents are received at special train sure you know they know how to do yeah that helen chant could do it if she were here that's because she's an expert and net worth it doesn't necessarily mean she's always an

expert when she's testifying she is in this case i think that's pretty apparent the question is what she wasn't they didn't follow the procedures that there was any prejudice here because apparently she had all the

prejudice comes from not being able well first of all they represented to us to answer again one of the questions they were there the government represented to us that she was not testifying as an expert that was quite clear you've heard that again right here she's

not an expert don't worry about it ok that's a big deal as a huge deal and so i didn't know she non experts want what she going to do put in some reschedules no problem i probably

i was deprived of the identity of the substance of her testimony i was deprived of her identified as an expert i was deprived of the opportunity to depose her as an expert but most importantly

i didn't get my hands on her written report which was her direct testimony i would have their direct testimony a minimum of thirty days before trial imagine how useful that would be have thirty days to prepare your cross examination

have thirty days and look have your own exit you know i don't i don't hear you saying is that i would have hired my own expert based on all of this on my own expert would have done this this and this absolutely if i'm faced with an expert right now but you haven't said that at all you have

you say you say well i would have done i would have had the availability of her deposition i would have been a lot happier report i'm saying now but you don't so you've never said we've been i've been listening to you very carefully are all morning you've never said well i'm going to go out i would have gone out and taken that

information i would have gone out and i would have hired my own expert my own expert would have said this this and this about her test i would i don't know specifically whether i would have done that because i haven't seen we haven't said haven't seen her report but have all seen having seen her

report i may well have done that clearly that's one of the reasons you want to see the report now if a report so lame i could rip it up on my own i would need to do that mr robinson the man who related question oh i don't want

my question is is it customary in a net worth case for the government to french a written report on the net worth case of their revenue agent then what if it's not customary

why is that they i can't answer that you know because it's too much trouble and they get away with it well it this must have been raised before i mean this just me to your point

[ m o r n i n g y o u r h o n o r s a i d r o b b i n s o n t h e l a w y e r f o r t h e t a x p a y e r s . t h i s c a s e


for this court to overturn that funny especially given the owner standard of review it must surmount but the jury never had a fair opportunity to consider the southern ninety six patent because it just records clean constructions fundamentally

compromised the case that the cells are allowed to present to the germs let me understand exactly what you're arguing and that relates to the out general verdict rule yes i understand what that concept means

presupposes that to the extent that we would have erm any of the limitations you would have a good faith ability to argue from love that that those limitations are satisfied

the court would have to send it back for a new trial because it's possible that the jury found that after self satisfied the two other women titian's two other terms even if construed by the district court me give you an example

jury could not have found i mean really i think what their position is asking this court to do is to invade the province of the jury because we have a general finding of non infringement but but it is nevertheless quite possible that the jury agreed with us on to t

three terms that simply disagreed with the third and if this court were to set aside one of those terms then i think you have to send it back because the standard under the teller facts capital cases this court has to be able to conclude that the jury

necessary would have reached the same result and the jury in the court can't do that unless it were to find that there was no possible evidence on which the jury could have found and again looking at the evidence here there was substantial test with the whole

destination address limitation sure and that is to i mean if if we if we agree with the district court on that claim construction is there any question at all

destination address and it's the machine key that actually tells you not only what the second computer is what you're trying to connect with but how to find that and that's that's a destination does now we think the district court's interpretation of that was wrong

the the the claim says destination address it doesn't say network address so that literally the term is wrong and this and that that destroyed but if we if we agree with that just report

was mad even if construed by the district court and there was overwhelming evidence presented by dr tiller x our expert that the destination address limitation was in that now the other claim term of another claim component that we've challenge is just a court step ordered requirement

read brief or it argues that the server must communicate the second computer before the session key is generated now i think that that rigid step order requirement is problematic both because of the court's general rules you

it showed that under the district court's rigid claimed order of requirement you had to run the bases you had to go to first the second to third and then who wears the expert argue that s s o's position was that the runner could go from home base to second base or then the third base and all around

can imagine and that demonstrative in a complex pattern case like this might resonate with the german and i think if the court agrees that the step order requirement was erroneous then i think that that tees up perfectly the general

any one of this step that we think what accurately described and said there is no evidence that that that status is cracked right and i think if you could find it there was no evidence but i don't think you could fairly find that bec

again dr keller expert testified that we didn't need the step or the requirement each of the steps at least under the doctrine of equivalence so i think if the court agrees that the step order itself wasn't imposed then you have to find th

term is erroneous you'd have to i think you'd have to find prejudice against a king in a baseball diamond demonstrative which was shown to the jury you'd have to find prejudice and then the only question is the application of the general verdict will now on intercept and i think that there are two problems

with the district court's claim construction one is the importation of the shim requirement which is not found in the claim language but the other is the importation of the diverting requirement the claim says intercepted and notably does not say diverting

even though other claims do and i think if you look at the figure three in the pattern which is on page one of four of the attendant of the blue brief you can see that on the number two arrows forty and forty one

if you go into the phone discussion of those arrows in the specification which is on page one thirteen lines forty seven to fifty six what you'll find is he arrow forty number forty which goes from the

peer applications box down to the chin that's defined as intercepting which defense cation says hooking or intercept it which is perfectly consistent with s s l to interpretation of it to be receiving from one software module that which concerns

well as i don't think it would i mean if it then the question would be whether or not we've met that shim apartment but again you get back to this problem that it's possible that situates argue the case and it's experts argue the case that to meet the

intercepting term we had to show that diverting and shinned so it's possible that the jury said they haven't shown diverting even though they have shown that the wind sock which was an argument a trial for expert was actually a membership limitation and so that's it that's why i think

under our claim constructions their central argument is that as long as this court can find that there is some evidence to support their inter the for the jury to reach an finding that the limitations were not met then the courthouse to reject their motion that's a j

l standard it's not a new trial standard this court's new trial standard in console flex and rise and i'm quoting from thirteen twenty eight on page thirty twenty eight of toll flex the court can affirm only if there is substantial evidence supporting the verdict

the court just can't do that on the record here because you have a general finding of non infringement and it's it's perfectly possible that the jury could have found that two of the claim terms were met that we had met a burden on them but

but one of them was not it's the district court's claim construction we don't know which one that was it could have found that it could have found more helpful it as a self but i think that's why this case is teed up so nicely under the general verdict or news far as i

can tell i think that the position that the general verdict rule would apply here which would seem to come very close to a situation an argument that this is a patent specific rule that this court hasn't adopted that board has applied the general

having stated all the problems facing you place to see if your honor understand that i can't address everything in fifteen minutes or try to get right to the point first on the seven nine six patent in this case we have a thorough and well reasoned opinion from judge rewarding experience

of destination addresses just being an identifier for a desired location is clearly wrong judge ward's construction is clearly correct the claims talks to typically in our limited to communications between computers on an open network so we're inherently talking

about computer network communications that is as a person we're in the skilled new york in the patent would understand are a draft they have addresses they communicate between computers by address thing data that travels between the computers

because if you look at the rise in the services case you didn't even address whether one of the constructions was wrong because there was substantial evidence in the record to support and not infringement on the other claims instructions and

clearly here we have more than substantial evidence to support the verdict we submit that no reasonable jury could find that a meeting id and a session id are a destination address as construed by the court which if you

find that know it let's say you re mandate the court's opinion say we don't remain and it's a waste of time that the jury's going to reach the same verdict we don't remember and you've even when you see there is an error in construction you look at the record to see whether the waste of time

basically apply the same all standards say no reasonable jury could say current but i'm right and so what i'm saying is on this record on this trial record no reasonable jury could conclude that the meeting id the session id or the machine name are the

network address of a computer server there is no there is no evidence of the support that the cigar points to the fact that the judge at the end of the trial allowed the issue to go to the jury over are with the first in

ma and then we submitted a written j mark but the judge never actually ruled on the written jumala he just allowed it to go to the jury call it a pocket veto ever but we have no analysis from analysis from him of the evidence in the two well the evidence in the trial is in our

briefs and recites how in fact we operate fundamentally differently from what's claimed our go to product never know the actual destination address of the computer they're trying to talk to because we're always talking through an intermediary serv

all we do is send messages to the server we don't know that destination address of the second client computer so no reasonable jury could find that their expert dr kelly merely said oh it identifies the meeting the machine

identifies the computer he never said it is in fact a network address and it is not and i submit the record is very clear on that from that it flows it if there is no destination address if they can't win on destination address they

can't win on the phrase quote intercepting a destination address regardless of how you interpret the word intercepting i agree that a shame is required i submit that judge ward was correct in

or diverting so those things should be affirmed but if the thing they accuse of being a destination address is not a destination address we can't in french a matter how you do intercept thing and likewise the step order becomes irrelevant because

can't infringe a step order or a lack of a step or you just don't infringe so destination address we submit is the way through the we don't have to go into a lengthy discussion the general verdict will we have the facts we have the correct playing the destruction

awarded there was a similar case which we cite in which the court said well maybe there should have been a prevailing partner but it was within the court's discretion to deny seize and in that case we've really more or less argued that it's within the court's scr

here regardless of whether or not there should be a prevailing party because we actually won the bigger patent and they they won the little one but yes they did get some relief we also got really so i don't know if that answers your question

intercepting oh so with respect to the case law i wanted to just point again to variety in services and the ecolab case where this court was clear that the burden is on them to prove

they're only argued for prejudices to say oh well the judge should have adopted our construction and under our construction we're president of a never say that we have met our burden under ecolab of showing that there is not harmless and they don't try to do

so your honor again here if this had been briefed we would have gone into it if they had tried to argue that but when soccer is clearly should win second shelf as shown in the patent figure to as being part of the prior art it's not a shim and it didn't function as a shim in our devices

because as we say we're fundamentally different since we're always designed to connect to the server and communicate only with the server we never have to intercept anything all of our data flows down the stack exactly as it's supposed to without any

intercepting any subverting it's designed to go to our server it goes to our server and so there is no basis for saying under intercepting in this record which we explain our facts in detail an introduction there's no basis for finding th

but regardless of whether that's the case the issues were close enough and the evidence was disputed between experts about that clearly our defenses were reasonable recently judge she came up with a decision in april from

eight discloses the mutual up medication we point to it you have the documents in front of you you can look at them you can see that from the specification of the patent so the applications layer is defined as being what's above the t

yes i believe i have it i'm not i don't know the answer the question but i believe it is still been over and in that it is a question reasonless is positive is a question of law what would a reason of personal what would a

reasonable person have the side of the judge in his opinion never actually analyze that issue what is reasonable or not he didn't look at our evidence weigh it against their evidence he didn't do the analysis that you have done in your opinion it's so you're saying

them directed verdict and that's because he recognized that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to reach either conclusion and there's no reason for this court to wade in there and no basis to find that there was no evidence for the jury to reach a concrete solution possible evidence

he analyzed the issues second to just the core properly concluded that this was not even a close call there are two issues on this first is whether we meant the encrypted file or limitation the whole point of the communications here is to encrypt and here

the defense didn't carry the day but that's not the standard that's not the issue but i think it was whether the defense was reasonable you're right your honor but i think that just a court absolutely did look at that in pages ninety five to ninety

fact the judge skill straps finding here after sitting through the whole trial considering that means that this wasn't even a close call the last thing i would say is i don't think the court needs to reach that issue here because we when even under the de novo standard because these

applied the wrong analysis in the it was over and over you lost your defenses are all reasonable there wasn't a balance analysis of the evidence on both sides and he was also persuaded heavily by the fact that after the trial even though the

patent office had of rejected these claims for a while based on our art after the trial they were rejected finally by the patent office i mean the the claims survived but also this subjective willfulness fails in any way because

of this huge gap between their proof that they had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that we were reckless but there was no evidence that anyone involved with the accused products actually knew of the patents or had any reason to investigate them

accurately reported in the breach and i urge the court to look at the record citations that have been cited and confirm that they actually say what they say they say in their briefs but with respect to

encrypt files here this is a situation where the court's construction as explained in detail by judge ward through the distinction based on the claim language between encrypting packets and

cobbled together as part of as their evidence of a photo of a document here where there's a little padlock that says encryption will merely encrypting data is not encrypted files based on what the court itself

said the claim construction means are witnesses testified mr murtha who was the engineer on the product that we encrypt at the packet level the file and our expert testified that we do not nee

[ f o r t h i s c o u r t t o o v e r t u r n t h a t f u n n y e s p e c i a l l y g i v e n t h e o w n e r


self defense has the right as well as the responsibility of every american citizen

no matter who he is or what his background or attitude sometimes he can protect himself as an individual but more often he must do it as a member of a group military

organization is simply a means to accomplish that and efficiently the basic purpose of professional authority in the us navy therefore is to enable each man as part of a combination of man

to defend himself and his country more effectively than he could through his own efforts

what is required of the commissioned officer carrying out the functions of authority in the naval service technical knowledge obviously basic but because the officer doesn't work with machines

he needs something the ability to get people to work together toward common objectives he needs to be a leader what does leadership make one thin

all successful commander let's see what kind of man they were impulsive delivering religious forceful mike

scholarly decisive humorist and he was he asked a shy aggressive each was different in his own way what

did they have in common one thing for sure they got the job done and since the job required men they got men to do the job and they got them to

do it better in getting men to do jobs that are women recognized two essential requirement first the men must be able to do the job in this

imam is like the machines he uses the better designed the machine the better it does its job the better a man's natural ability skill training and experience the better he can do his job

if he wants to second then men must want to do the job like machines they need forces that can drive them to use their abilities to think to work

those to get the job done forces that drive us all to learn and to do what we must to get what we need men like machines are driven but they're

the similarity and while any particular machine is driven by the one kind of power for which it was designed human beings are driven by a multitude of motivating force

others want to serve all driven by this human motive power all seeking satisfaction for their special needs and aspirations some successfully

personality is the sum nation of all he has then all he now is and all he ever hopes to be is total ingredients for living and doing a job

are and how they are integrated what kind of personality they produce will all have some bearing on the manner in which the individual can make an adjustment to the ever

changing circumstances and requirements of life to the environment in which he lives and vironment doesn't mean merely a farm in new england

or a carrier at sea it means all of the circumstances to which the individual must react

complex working or fighting equipment a sick family and over solicitous mother or even a difficult senior officer these unfavorable

circumstances are stressed everybody is constantly seeking a reduction in the tensions caused by the stress and when a man succeeds in reducing tensions when he

gets what he needs or is satisfied with what he gets when he can handle the uncomfortable stresses he meets he is emotionally balanced adjusted the way

man's personality is able to adjust to the ever changing stress in his life minute to minute hour to our day to day is the real measure of his emotional

if he cannot handle presses of his environment he is emotionally out of balance maladjusted all of us at times show evidence of maladjustment to some

degree in the form of minor failures depression errors of judgment inefficiency

irritation and other deviations from ideal behav

we all fling between adjustment and maladjusted at any point short of complete success we may give up reasonable attempts to adjust and resort to the

unreasonable that might occur as a result of the environmental stresses becoming too tough for the personality or the personality becoming too weak for the environmental stress

when the battle of adjustment becomes really tough we are frustrated and naturally try to escape but since physical flight is in most cases impossible we may seek a scape

alcoholism in such flight reactions the personalities suffer or frustration may result in the fight reaction the

environment is made to suffer such reactions are seen in irritability and in the structed behavior sometimes

it is possible to have a mixture of both the fight and the flight reaction such as a publisher strong hand in the navy as anywhere else the fight reaction can also

irresponsible actions of any kind inevitably involve the professional interest not only of the line officer but also of the medical officer because although disciplinary problems out a line officers responsibility

the medical officer can help prevent bad behavior and it's so bad behavior is a symptom of unsuccessful attempts to adjust to the naval and virus but you've got to realize

furthermore in the navy a man whose needs are frustrated can resign or change his job he can gracefully escape a maladjusted sailor must either stick it out

psychological support both for the officer and for the men under his command military discipline itself is a primary support because it enables the individual to

fit into an orderly system being a member of an organized group belonging sharing the responsibilities and privileges of military life offers a basis for emotional

stability to every man and the junior officer can give his man even further psychological support by recognizing them as individuals by trying to understand the

but the officer who ignores his man's driving needs and problems of adjustment is ignoring his own self interest on satisfied

an inefficient performance of duty the common denominator in all our successful naval leaders has been they got the job done

if you are going to be a successful naval leader your men must want to do the job they will if they achieve healthy emotional balance you can help

achieve this balance by your understanding of the adjustments necessary within the naval

[ s e l f d e f e n s e h a s t h e r i g h t a s w e l l a s t h e r


Abstract:
To describe the impact of chronic, inflammatory arthritis on parenting and to develop a conceptual framework for subsequent study of mothering.
A qualitative, grounded theory design guided data collection and analysis. In-depth interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 12 women with either rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, or systemic lupus erythematosus who were mothers of at least 1 child living at home. Transcripts were analyzed using a systematic approach of coding and forming concepts and key categories to construct an explanatory framework. Peer checking and member checking enhanced analytical rigor.
Analysis of participants' experiences resulted in 4 interrelated categories describing the impact of arthritis on their role as mothers: participation in mothering tasks, best described as "sometimes I can, sometimes I can't"; different types and levels of support from others; the influence of the mother's arthritis on the family; and the challenge of balancing energy and fatigue. Individuals' arthritis story, life stage, their children's developmental stage, and daily routine described the context in which mothers experienced elements of each of the 4 main categories.

Inflammatory arthritis has a dramatic impact on the experience of motherhood, with both positive and negative influences. The perspectives shared by study participants may inform practice regarding problem identification and adaptive strategies, and the explanatory model generated from the data proposes hypotheses for further study.


Abstract:
Synovial inflammation is one of the most characteristic events in different types of arthritis, including Osteoarthritis (OA). Emerging evidence also suggests the involvement of lipids in the regulation of inflammatory processes. The aim of this study was to elucidate the heterogeneity and spatial distribution of lipids in the OA synovial membrane and explore their putative involvement in inflammation.
The abundance and distribution of lipids were examined in human synovial membranes. To this end, histological cuts from this tissue were analysed by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization - mass spectrometry imaging (MALDI-MSI). The lipidomic profile of OA synovium was characterized and compared with healthy and other forms of inflammatory arthropathies as Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) and Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) using principal component analysis and discriminant analysis methods. Lipid identification was undertaken by tandem MS analyses and database queries.
Our results reveal differential and characteristic lipidomic profiles between OA and control samples. Specifically, we unveiled that OA synovium presents elevated levels of phosphatidylcholines, fatty acids and lysophosphatidic acids and lower levels of lysophosphatidylcholines compared to control tissues. The spatial distribution of particular glycerophospholipids was also correlated with hypertrophic, inflamed or vascularized synovial areas. Compared with other inflammatory arthritis, the OA tissue showed lower amounts of phosphatidylethanolamine-based plasmalogens.

This study provides a novel insight into the lipid profiles of synovial membrane and differences in abundance between OA and control tissues. The lipidomic alterations improves understanding of the pathogenic mechanisms of OA and may be important for its diagnosis.


Abstract:
To evaluate whether lifetime suicidal ideation with intention to act and/or suicidal behaviors reported at baseline predict risk of prospectively reporting suicidal behavior during subsequent study participation.
Data from studies using the electronic Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (eC-SSRS) to prospectively monitor suicidal ideation and behaviors between September 2009 and May 2011 were analyzed. Studies included patients with major depressive disorder, insomnia, posttraumatic stress disorder, epilepsy, and fibromyalgia. Records for 35,224 eC-SSRS assessments were extracted. Incomplete assessments and eC-SSRS records from patients missing a baseline assessment or with no prospective follow-up assessments were excluded. Baseline lifetime eC-SSRS reports were categorized as negative (no lifetime ideation with intent to act or prior suicidal behavior) or positive (lifetime ideation with intent to act but no prior behavior, no ideation with intent to act but prior behavior, or both lifetime ideation with intent and prior behavior).
3,776 patients completed a baseline and 1 or more follow-up assessments. The mean follow-up period was 64 days. Of patients with negative lifetime reports, 2.4% subsequently reported suicidal behavior during study participation, compared to 12.0% of patients with lifetime ideation with intent only (OR = 5.55; 95% CI, 2.65-11.59), 9.6% of patients with lifetime behavior only (OR = 4.33; 95% CI, 2.94-6.39), and 18.3% of patients with both (OR = 9.13; 95% CI, 6.47-12.88). Sensitivity and specificity of positive reports for identifying suicidal behaviors were 0.67 and 0.76, respectively.

Patients reporting lifetime suicidal ideation with intent to act and/or prior suicidal behavior at baseline are 4 to 9 times more likely to prospectively report suicidal behavior during study participation.


Abstract:
To investigate whether disease control can be achieved in early active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by treatment with methotrexate and intraarticular betamethasone, and whether the addition of cyclosporine to the regimen has any additional effect.
Patients (n = 160) were randomized to receive methotrexate 7.5 mg/week plus cyclosporine 2.5 mg/kg of body weight/day (combination therapy) or methotrexate plus placebo-cyclosporine (monotherapy). At weeks 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8 and every 4 weeks thereafter, betamethasone was injected into swollen joints (maximum 4 joints or 4 ml per visit). Beginning at week 8, if synovitis was present, the methotrexate dosage was increased stepwise up to 20 mg/week, with a subsequent stepwise increase in the cyclosporine or placebo-cyclosporine dosage up to 4 mg/kg.
At 52 weeks, 20% improvement according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) was achieved in 85% of the combination therapy group versus 68% of the monotherapy group (P = 0.02). The median individual overall ACR response (ACR-N) in the 2 groups was 80.0% (interquartile range 40.1-91.8%) and 54.5% (interquartile range 2.4-87.8%), respectively (P = 0.025). At 48 and 52 weeks, ACR remission criteria were met in 35% of the combination therapy group and 28% of the monotherapy group. Progression in the Larsen score at 52 weeks was -0.2 +/- 6.5 and 0.4 +/- 6.9 (mean +/- SD) in the combination therapy and monotherapy groups, respectively. Serum creatinine levels increased by 7%, and hypertrichosis was more prevalent, in the combination therapy group.

Combined treatment with methotrexate and intraarticular glucocorticoid showed excellent disease control and stopped the progression of erosions in patients with early active RA, who had a poor prognosis. Addition of cyclosporine improved the ACR20 and ACR-N responses, whereas the ACR50 and ACR70 responses, remission rates, and radiographic changes did not differ between the 2 study groups.


Abstract:
Electrogustometry is used as a measurement of taste perception. The prevailing theory is that the anodal current delivered to the tongue mucosa stimulates the sour taste receptors, but this is not universally accepted. Our aim was to evaluate to what extent electrogustometry relates to an ability to detect sour taste--rather than sweet, salt, or bitter.
We compared automated electrogustometric thresholds with visual analogue scale (VAS) ratings of various tastant solutions in 114 subjects. The whole mouth, and each side of the tongue were tested separately. VAS scores from the strongest set of solutions, and the lowest electrogustometry thresholds for each location were used for statistics.
There was a significant correlation between electrogustometry threshold and the whole mouth perception of the salt taste solution. Electrogustometry correlated significantly but weakly for all taste qualities when testing was confined to left and right oral tongue. The positive predictive values of electrogustometry were no better in relation to sour taste perception than to the other taste qualities.

Our results do not support the theory that electrogustometry is mediated by sour taste receptors or even that it reflects the sour taste quality. We postulate that electrogustometry measures a function of taste perception, which is different from that induced by chemical stimuli.


def get_original_function_name(self, line, col, minified_name,
                                   minified_source):
        """Given a token location and a minified function name and the
        minified source file this returns the original function name if it
        can be found of the minified function in scope.
        """
        # Silently ignore underflows
        if line < 0 or col < 0:
            return None
        minified_name = minified_name.encode('utf-8')
        sout = _ffi.new('const char **')
        try:
            slen = rustcall(_lib.lsm_view_get_original_function_name,
                            self._get_ptr(), line, col, minified_name,
                            minified_source, sout)
            if slen > 0:
                return _ffi.unpack(sout[0], slen).decode('utf-8', 'replace')
        except SourceMapError:
            # In some rare cases the library is/was known to panic.  We do
            # not want to report this upwards  (this happens on slicing
            # out of range on older rust versions in the rust-sourcemap
            # library)
            pass

['def', 'get_original_function_name', '(', 'self', ',', 'line', ',', 'col', ',', 'minified_name', ',', 'minified_source', ')', ':', '# Silently ignore underflows', 'if', 'line', '<', '0', 'or', 'col', '<', '0', ':', 'return', 'None', 'minified_name', '=', 'minified_name', '.', 'encode', '(', "'utf-8'", ')', 'sout', '=', '_ffi', '.', 'new', '(', "'const char **'", ')', 'try', ':', 'slen', '=', 'rustcall', '(', '_lib', '.', 'lsm_view_get_original_function_name', ',', 'self', '.', '_get_ptr', '(', ')', ',', 'line', ',', 'col', ',', 'minified_name', ',', 'minified_source', ',', 'sout', ')', 'if', 'slen', '>', '0', ':', 'return', '_ffi', '.', 'unpack', '(', 'sout', '[', '0', ']', ',', 'slen', ')', '.', 'decode', '(', "'utf-8'", ',', "'replace'", ')', 'except', 'SourceMapError', ':', '# In some rare cases the library is/was known to panic.  We do', '# not want to report this upwards  (this happens on slicing', '# out of range on older rust versions in the rust-sourcemap', '# library)', 'pass']

['Given', 'a', 'token', 'location', 'and', 'a', 'minified', 'function', 'name', 'and', 'the', 'minified', 'source', 'file', 'this', 'returns', 'the', 'original', 'function', 'name', 'if', 'it', 'can', 'be', 'found', 'of', 'the', 'minified', 'function', 'in', 'scope', '.']


def get_mac_address_table_input_request_type_get_interface_based_request_mac_type(self, **kwargs):
        """Auto Generated Code
        """
        config = ET.Element("config")
        get_mac_address_table = ET.Element("get_mac_address_table")
        config = get_mac_address_table
        input = ET.SubElement(get_mac_address_table, "input")
        request_type = ET.SubElement(input, "request-type")
        get_interface_based_request = ET.SubElement(request_type, "get-interface-based-request")
        mac_type = ET.SubElement(get_interface_based_request, "mac-type")
        mac_type.text = kwargs.pop('mac_type')

        callback = kwargs.pop('callback', self._callback)
        return callback(config)

['def', 'get_mac_address_table_input_request_type_get_interface_based_request_mac_type', '(', 'self', ',', '*', '*', 'kwargs', ')', ':', 'config', '=', 'ET', '.', 'Element', '(', '"config"', ')', 'get_mac_address_table', '=', 'ET', '.', 'Element', '(', '"get_mac_address_table"', ')', 'config', '=', 'get_mac_address_table', 'input', '=', 'ET', '.', 'SubElement', '(', 'get_mac_address_table', ',', '"input"', ')', 'request_type', '=', 'ET', '.', 'SubElement', '(', 'input', ',', '"request-type"', ')', 'get_interface_based_request', '=', 'ET', '.', 'SubElement', '(', 'request_type', ',', '"get-interface-based-request"', ')', 'mac_type', '=', 'ET', '.', 'SubElement', '(', 'get_interface_based_request', ',', '"mac-type"', ')', 'mac_type', '.', 'text', '=', 'kwargs', '.', 'pop', '(', "'mac_type'", ')', 'callback', '=', 'kwargs', '.', 'pop', '(', "'callback'", ',', 'self', '.', '_callback', ')', 'return', 'callback', '(', 'config', ')']


def update_views(self):
        """Update stats views."""
        # Call the father's method
        super(Plugin, self).update_views()

        # Add specifics informations
        # Alert and log
        self.views['used']['decoration'] = self.get_alert_log(self.stats['used'], maximum=self.stats['total'])


def contains_geometric_info(var):
    """ Check whether the passed variable is a tuple with two floats or integers """
    return isinstance(var, tuple) and len(var) == 2 and all(isinstance(val, (int, float)) for val in var)

['Check', 'whether', 'the', 'passed', 'variable', 'is', 'a', 'tuple', 'with', 'two', 'floats', 'or', 'integers']


def save_plain_image_as_file(self, filepath, format='png', quality=90):
        """Used for generating thumbnails.  Does not include overlaid
        graphics.
        """
        pixbuf = self.get_plain_image_as_pixbuf()
        options, values = [], []
        if format == 'jpeg':
            options.append('quality')
            values.append(str(quality))
        pixbuf.savev(filepath, format, options, values)

['Used', 'for', 'generating', 'thumbnails', '.', 'Does', 'not', 'include', 'overlaid', 'graphics', '.']


def simxClearFloatSignal(clientID, signalName, operationMode):
    '''
    Please have a look at the function description/documentation in the V-REP user manual
    '''

    if (sys.version_info[0] == 3) and (type(signalName) is str):
        signalName=signalName.encode('utf-8')
    return c_ClearFloatSignal(clientID, signalName, operationMode)

['Please', 'have', 'a', 'look', 'at', 'the', 'function', 'description', '/', 'documentation', 'in', 'the', 'V', '-', 'REP', 'user', 'manual']


def find_matches(self, content, file_to_handle):
        """Find all matches of an expression in a file
        """
        # look for all match groups in the content
        groups = [match.groupdict() for match in
                  self.match_expression.finditer(content)]
        # filter out content not in the matchgroup
        matches = [group['matchgroup'] for group in groups
                   if group.get('matchgroup')]

        logger.info('Found %s matches in %s', len(matches), file_to_handle)
        # We only need the unique strings found as we'll be replacing each
        # of them. No need to replace the ones already replaced.
        return list(set(matches))

['def', 'find_matches', '(', 'self', ',', 'content', ',', 'file_to_handle', ')', ':', '# look for all match groups in the content', 'groups', '=', '[', 'match', '.', 'groupdict', '(', ')', 'for', 'match', 'in', 'self', '.', 'match_expression', '.', 'finditer', '(', 'content', ')', ']', '# filter out content not in the matchgroup', 'matches', '=', '[', 'group', '[', "'matchgroup'", ']', 'for', 'group', 'in', 'groups', 'if', 'group', '.', 'get', '(', "'matchgroup'", ')', ']', 'logger', '.', 'info', '(', "'Found %s matches in %s'", ',', 'len', '(', 'matches', ')', ',', 'file_to_handle', ')', "# We only need the unique strings found as we'll be replacing each", '# of them. No need to replace the ones already replaced.', 'return', 'list', '(', 'set', '(', 'matches', ')', ')']

['Find', 'all', 'matches', 'of', 'an', 'expression', 'in', 'a', 'file']


def create(self):
        """Creates a token

        It uses the app_name as the notes and the scopes are
        the permissions required by the application. See those
        in github when configuring an app token

        Raises a TFARequired if a two factor is required after
        the atempt to create it without having call tfa before
        """
        headers = dict()
        if self.tfa_token:
            headers["X-GitHub-OTP"] = self.tfa_token
        token_name = self.app_name + platform.node()  # node specific in case the user has multiple hosts
        payload = dict(note=token_name, scopes=self.scopes)
        response = requests.post(
                self.api_url + "authorizations", auth=(self.user, self.password),
                headers=headers, json=payload
        )

        if response.status_code == 401 and "required" in response.headers.get("X-GitHub-OTP", ""):
            raise TFARequired("TFA required for the user")
        if response.status_code == 422:
            raise AlreadyExistsError("APP already exists. Please delete {} token".format(token_name))
        if response.status_code == 401:
            raise BadPassword("Bad User/Password")
        response.raise_for_status()
        return response.json()["token"]


def combine_pyramid_and_save(g_video, orig_video, enlarge_multiple, fps, save_filename='media/output.avi'):
    """Combine a gaussian video representation with the original and save to file"""
    width, height = get_frame_dimensions(orig_video[0])
    fourcc = cv2.VideoWriter_fourcc(*'MJPG')
    print("Outputting to %s" % save_filename)
    writer = cv2.VideoWriter(save_filename, fourcc, fps, (width, height), 1)
    for x in range(0, g_video.shape[0]):
        img = np.ndarray(shape=g_video[x].shape, dtype='float')
        img[:] = g_video[x]
        for i in range(enlarge_multiple):
            img = cv2.pyrUp(img)

        img[:height, :width] = img[:height, :width] + orig_video[x]
        res = cv2.convertScaleAbs(img[:height, :width])
        writer.write(res)

['Combine', 'a', 'gaussian', 'video', 'representation', 'with', 'the', 'original', 'and', 'save', 'to', 'file']


"Orange Is the New Black" star Yael Stone is renouncing her U.S. green card to return to her native Australia in order to fight climate change.


"We have one beautiful law," Trump recently said in his characteristically bizarre syntax and diction, repeating the word "beautiful."


This invention relates to a three-ring binder having an actuating crank.

Many modem ring binder mechanisms have actuating levers for opening and closing two, three or more rings.

In some such devices, the levers also lock the rings closed.

The typical arrangement is to attach the bottoms of the ring halves to hinged plates confined between the edges of an arcuate metal housing which provides a toggling action as the plates snap between open and closed positions.

Other devices have been proposed in which the rings are opened and/or closed by a cam-type mechanism.

Prior such constructions are seen in U.S. Pat.

778,910 discloses a two-ring binder which is opened by lifting the end of a lever which depresses a crank whose ends are the movable ends of the two rings.

It would be advantageous to have a three-ring mechanism of the crank-actuated type.

An object of the invention is to improve the operation of a crank-operated ring binder having three or more rings.

These and other objects are attained by a three-ring binder having a support plate, and at least three rings, each comprising a movable segment pivotally attached to the support plate and an immovable segment affixed to said support plate, and a mechanism for moving the rings between an open position and a closed and locked position.

The mechanism includes a crank pivotally supported on the support plate for oscillation about a longitudinal axis.

The crank has plural throws offset from the longitudinal axis.

The movable ring segments are integrally attached to said crank.

A leaf spring biases the crank toward a rings-closed position, and a manually operable lever moves the crank toward a rings-open position.

The lever is pivotally mounted on said support plate and depresses the throw, moving the crank towards its rings-closed position, as the lever is depressed.


Q:

High speed steering & wheel vibration

First post and I'm flummoxed.

At speeds of 70-75 one can feel the steering wheel vibrate fast.

At 80mph(for testing purposes) it largely disappears.

Back down to 65 the vibration in the steering dissapates greatly but one can still feel the front wheels shake.

Went back to the original store and had them put on two new front tires on the off chance it might be a bad set of tires.

Replaced rotors, brakes, entire front strut assembly along with lower ball joints.

Took it for a drive today and no improvement.

Full disclosure: My mechanic at the outset said I didn't need new ball joint or struts as the whole suspension looked new almost.

Not sure what to do without throwing money at this problem.

Did the 12-6 & 9-3 tire test and the wheels don't jiggle or move at all.

This didn't happen while I had my old tires & rotors on them prior to replacement.

A:

Have you tried swapping the front and rear wheels, you could have one slightly bent wheel.


Q:

Emacs: Is it possible to expand/collapse single chapters?

In Emacs + org-mode it is possible to collapse the whole text, expand all the subtitles and all the text with SHIFT+TAB.

A:

Yes, just omit the Shift and use Tab only.


In an earlier thread, as a Rams fan, I expressed concern with the Rams selection of Brockers because LSU players seem to underwhelm in the NFL.

Below is a list of LSU players who are on, or will be on, NFL rosters.

McClure has been a good center for the Falcons; Peterson has loads of potential as he is already one of the best return men; Landry has been solid, but only 4 career ints????;

Henderson has been a consistent deep threat for the Saints; while Bowe is a stud.

But overall, LSU players have not exactly set the NFL on fire.

I think the only player who receives consistent pro bowl recognition is Bowe, while Peterson may warrant that type of attention sooner rather than later.

Now let's take a school such as Boston College, who has spent the last few years near the bottom of the weak ACC.

I don't think it's just LSU, it's alot of big college programs.

USC, Texas, Florida, they seem to produce lots of busts.

Talented teams mask alot of individual flaws that prospects might have.

For example Brockers, it didn't seem to matter if he didn't push the pocket or have any pass rush moves because he's playing next to two stud pass-rushers.

I'm not saying he's going to bust although he wasn't my favorite prospect but at the end of the day his weakness doesn't hurt LSU as much as it would a team that didn't also have Mingo and Montgomery, therefore making everyone look better.

It's not that teams should just avoid these guys from powerhouse programs because that would be stupid, but I think you need to take a harder look at their flaws than you would a kid from a smaller school.

I don't think it looks that out of the ordinary.

And a perfectly reasonable explanation is that high-profile schools may be more complete teams in the first place, and have great coaching to develop their players, and are more heavily scouted by NFL teams, and thus have more mediocre-to-decent roster-filler types that make the NFL, where similar guys from smaller schools may not have the kind of experience, development, coaching, and exposure that those from the big schools do.

But USC, Texas and Florida have produced some studs as well.

Ryan Khalil, Clay Matthews, Brian Cushing for USC; Casey Hampton, Jamaal Charles, Jermicheal Finley, Brian Orakpo, and Earl Thomas for Texas; the Pouncy's, Dunlap, Hernandez, and Percy Harvin for Florida.

Granted, these schools had their share of disappointments and busts, they also appear to have more success at the pro level than LSU (though one could make a argument that Florida players are somewhat disappointing).

Two future Hall of Famers (Lewis and Reed), another who is well on his way (Andre Johnson), one who has Hall of Fame numbers (Reggie Wayne), one of the best running backs in the league (Frank Gore), and Pro Bowlers at one time or another such as McKinnie, Vilma, Graham, Wilfork, Rolle, Myers, Moss, Hester, and McGahee - as well as a plethora of others who are very good NFL players.

LSU has, really in just the past decade or so became a national powerhouse.

Give LSU some time and I'm sure there list will look almost as impressive as Miami.

Miami was producing stars at nearly every level (although it's amazing QB and O-Line never seemed to develop much) while LSU really just seems to produce DT's, DB's, a few WR's and some odd ones here and there/

I don't want to get too much into it, but LSU wasn't a powerhouse program in the 90s, and Miami was in the 90s and early 00s.

Miami was producing stars at nearly every level (although it's amazing QB and O-Line never seemed to develop much) while LSU really just seems to produce DT's, DB's, a few WR's and some odd ones here and there/

Good point regarding quarterbacks.

Other than Kelly and perhaps Kosar, Miami never really produced top flight qbs.

Yeah, Testeverde played for decades, but never was the player many thought he would be.

Even as of late, Miami has produced good players.

Olsen, Graham, Beason, Winston, Phillips, Shields, Franklin, and Campbell.

LSU has not really produced too many DTs, though they have had a few good db's (Peterson and Landry being two of the better ones).

You may be onto something as far as LSU lacking in the pro department due to their lack of past success....look at Alabama.

They are not exactly supplying the NFL with Pro Bowlers.

Just five or six years ago, they were dismal.

Yeah I was talking the second life of Miami football, from the 90s-2000s they havent produced any QBs.

I hate this program actually, and am still fairly bitter about buster davis and jacob hester being not just awful, but really pretty pathetic to the extent that you never thought they were even trying hard.

Hester actually is still on the Bolt roster despite being a fullback that takes away from the running game's potency, although will be a special teamer/backup to McClain this year.

We also have Scafe and Lee in camp, AJ Smith loves LSU like i loved that girl in high school who did meth, until she literally got a facial scar from a car crash.

It's hard to give Miami credit for "producing" solid pros lately because even though some of them turned out to be solid pros, they it's only because of the coaching they got once in the NFL.

They were raw as a turnip leaving Miami and the program did absolutely nothing to develope these players.

A lot of the best pros that Bama produced over the years are recently retired like Chris Samuels, Shaun Alexander, etc... or were tragically killed in car accidents like Derrick Thomas was.

Alabama has produced some of the best pros that the NFL has ever had if you go back a little... guys like Ozzie Newsome, John Hannah, Dwight Stephenson, Joe Namath, Bart Starr, Kenny Stabler, etc.

The more draft picks a program produces, the higher the bust percentage increases.

Likewise, so does the odds of produces average pros.

As great as Miami was in the 90's and 2000's, look at all the 1st round busts... Yatil Green, Mike Rumph, Phillip Buchanon, Jerome McDougle, Damione Lewis, William Joseph, etc.

Dan Morgan was a nice player but made of glass.

You have to produce a lot of average pros in order to produce a lot of great ones.

Those great Miami teams from the late 90s to the start of the last decade also featured Clinton Portis, Edge James, Jeremy Shockey and the late great Sean Taylor.

Go back a bit further and you'll find Warren Sapp, Michael Irvin, Cortez Kennedy, Russell Maryland, the Blades brothers and Jerome Brown (RIP).

Even long before the Hurricanes became a powerhouse in the 80s they still produced two HOF Raiders legends in Ted Hendricks and Jim Otto.

There is just a lack of good-great players that come out of it.

Someone mentioned that it is a problem with many of the bigger schools, and that may be true.

A program like LSU gets a lot of hype because they have been so good the past decade, and I feel that causes people to "fall in love" with certain players even if they aren't that good.

I'm going to throw out a 'correlation does not imply causation' worry here.

There are only so many productive NFL players at a given time.

Right now, LSU hasn't produced as many as they could have.

I think guys like Brockers, Claiborne and Randle will help change this trend.

Just glancing over the list those guys right there were/are pretty darn good players in the NFL - most of them pro bowl or at least pro bowl quality.

There are a bunch of other guys on that list who are established starters in the league even if they aren't pro bowlers or stars.

I'm pretty positive Morris Claiborne is going to be really good as well.

Sure LSU has had a fair share of high pick busts, but so does every other school who produces that large of a volume of top picks (look at USC, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Georgia, Florida State, etc.)

It's been covered pretty well but when you're on a top team you get more exposure, hence guys at LSU that would've been 2nd-3rd rounders elsewhere going in round 1, same for 4th-5th rounders getting pushed up, etc

Boston College is in the dumpster now but they were a very consistent, if unexciting, 8-9 win team for a very long time (save the one year with Matt Ryan where they peaked at #2 overall).

They get no exposure being in a pro sports town with a small fanbase

Miami has obviously produced some great pros (or at least they used to) but half the players on that Miami list absolutely suck, or are barely rosterable players.