our last case this morning is wireless agency for says sony ericsson the memorandum opinion and order of sixteen i went through the specification and found about six instances in the specification where they're talking about a full set of keys and their distinguishing something that you have to standard twelve set of keys that throughout this whole thing we're talking about a device configuration that includes a full keyboard with all of the letters why isn't that specification column four six the device configuration of the present invention provides the following distinct features an alphanumeric data means that is central suitable for use without a pointing device and for rapid entry talking going on the device in column six the device of the present invention in clude sit at least an alpha man alphanumeric such as a full qwerty type keyboard that's describing the president vention not and in body well actually the worst such as i think is a key key term it says such as it doesn't say that inclusive and basically when it gets right down to where the poor went wrong is because it looked at the examples and let's look at the language of the court actually referred to and the and this is i think very poor it says the keyboard may be a keyboard with a layout such as common forty layout but need not be limited to this particular a substantially full set of alphanumeric when it does it don't you agree that that latter language is referring to something which has more than twelve or fourteen keys absolutely not i think you'd not have a you have a set of  i think you always take any any definition logical or illogical to an extreme but i don't think that's how many persons ordinary skill they are repack and then that raises a different question i mean nothing but how does the language  language from the specification misquoted incomplete language from the specification and they put together a definition and there is nothing now let's look at the other angle on this though when the specification does mention a twelve pad in twelve key twelve digit keypad it doesn't refer to it as a alpha numeric keyboard does it the conventional mobile phone configuration has the following disadvantages the keypad is typically a twelve digit keep bad etc so it's saying that's back that's not the invention it's not the alphanumeric keyboard that's calling two lines forty five to fifty doesn't say that anywhere and there is nothing about the sort of quote that the court uses or misquotes that says this is going to be a definition and of course you can't say it's a lexicographer case because the definition of special definition specification is not going to include terms like maybe but need not be limited to may include this is this is inclusive not exclusive language so it's not a lexicographer case the second is the court did not find a disclaimer there is nowhere in the opinion where a disclaimer or a disavowal is even mentioned but the twelve pad the twelve digit keypad is described in the specification is extremely slow awkward error prone and not appropriate for a device intended to transfer text file data well then how is this this language supposed to cover a twelve did you keep a little let me g easy example of this there's lots of things that this in a few look at the objects of the invention the object of the invention and the only objects of the invention relate to the idea that you can have a larger screen on a smaller device and save space for when it's not in use in other words it's a constantly visible display and when it's not in use it's small here you have a smaller device with a bigger screen that's the object of the invention in fact this company the company that invented it their main thing was content for so phone devices to access the internet things and so to get people to use their other inventions and their other products as content delivery they had an interest in making devices more amenable to content delivery on the cellphone that's the only reason why these apparatus ha was to make their content patents more accessible so you have here devised it's smaller in size but it has a bigger screen that's the whole idea when you open it up you have two choices you can make if you want miniaturization it's still almost the same size even the open position you have many or miniaturization you might use the same size keyboard however if you wanted to have a device where this was higher or bigger or slightly larger then you could have four keyboard or you could have keys that are much larger or you could have the same size keys with a stylus or some sort of a toggle switch or something else to make surfing the internet more easier all these make it easier now you may choose instead of making a different size keyboard to take advantage of the space you may decide if you want a miniature eyes you want to be with smaller buys it makes it easier but your breast pocket but it doesn't change the object of the invention the object of the invention always was that they were not interested in the object of the invention we're interested in the language of the claim and the language we're interested in is alphanumeric keyboard going back to column five the alphanumeric keyboard is easier and faster to huge then they keep the pads and touch screens on mobile phones and personal digital assistants the keyboard he goes on to talk about the full qwer layout and again that is from the specification is not from the claim the claim is but it is very careful as a matter of fact the last language of the specification is the specification should not be read as limiting it's not intended to be limiting we are taking the full and keyboard there's three ways you can do that to the patently distinguish the proper are on the basis of that particular body no there is nothing in the language used by the court to distinguish the invention based upon the type of in fact multiple variants about numeric keyboard was an expressed disclaimer the court did not find one and as a matter of fact as mr softee pointed out when he turned in his form the court granted summary judgment on a literal infringement based on this  and and also it was never there is no language in the specification that says this is an invention b this is a definition we define now in america keyboard this what yes is that does they do they give examples multiple examples communications and i'm here with rich win this morning and i believe that in character succession the court has gone right to the heart of the issue so let me follow up the court's questions are exactly right what the court was trying to do below was to determine what is the meaning of alphanumeric keyboard and the court had ample opportunity to look the specification in many many different places church rater has identified the present invention is in the off in america keyboard and specifically the court had an opportunity to see what the patent did in several places what he did it call them to have recognized as he set up the problem how do we avoid importing a limitation from the specification how do we know if we're doing that well you do that by taking the whole bible it's the it that's the classic tension that we face obviously that's where my and all these other cases struggle but in this case you say what did the court what did the patent he really intended and you have to read the specifications in light of the claims and the claims laid a specification and you say look am i taking a preferred and body image for example and limit in a very limited way importing that embodiment as a limitation on the claim just one idea one concept or am i looking to what path do you really consider to be his invention and saying in light of the specification which informs these claims it's clear that what the patentee intended in this instance was something very specific that he said in a fight for us in this instance he said an alphanumeric keyboard is much better than it twelve digit telephone touched keypad because it allows much more rapid texted tree it's much more capable and accessible for the for the user to get into it's intuitive it's easy he contracted that specifically with the language that you've already pointed out on a twelve keypad where he said it's slow it's awkward it's error prone it's not suited to be appropriate for the type of text entry i have in mind for this invention and so in those instances we can do only what we can always do we look to the claims and then we look to the specification which informs those claims and we say how does this best describe what the patty intended to be the scope of his invention clearly he said it is not a touch tone twelve digit keypad on a standard mobile phone and it provides for my invention what my invention does it provides for the ease and rapid text entry in that way and then what he says is let me tell you what this really is let me define for you what else in america consumer or the user to do what i intend them to do to do with instant messaging to do chatting and to do it quickly easily and efficiently and this is what i considered my invention to be when i use the term alphanumeric keep that's really what he said that the notion that this is a full alphanumeric keyboard the word doesn't distinguish it from some other alphanumeric keyboard it distinguishes it from the more limited keyboard the twelve digit mobile phone keypad that this particular inventor considered to be very inconsistent with the object of his invention namely the swift easy intuitive and treat of text on a regular basis so that's the distinction it was there and so in those respects i think you know if it's this it's a constant struggle but it's the struggle that's clearly what was done and so when we look at what the judges charge to us on a limited record and we looked at what he did judge fitzwater did exactly what you have told him to do in other cases most notably phillips by tronics and otherwise but he went back and said i have this image i have the claims and subject to those claims i just need look only to the intrinsic record to figure out what the best application of those claims with the business mission of this construction happens to be and that's what he did he did it carefully he did it thoughtfully gave everybody a lot of time he allowed several rounds of briefing and nature all i need is the numerous repetitive references to alphanumeric keyboard within the scope of this patent and all i need is to look at these claims and look at the specification and know how this term is to be defined and that's right i'm done and that's really the whole nature beyond that your honor i just really don't know that there's much more to say i was i guess i should address very quickly just a quick reference to this disclaimer disavowal the problem with it's the disclaimer and disembowel argument is it starts with the fundamentally flawed premise that keypad is an alpha numeric keypad it's very clear that this patent holder distinguish them and did not intend for that keypad to be the keyboard so if you don't intend for it to be part of the definition of alphanumeric keyboard in the first instance there's nothing to disavow or disclaim it just wasn't part of that definition inventors approach from the very beginning and that's really what happened perspective that particular issue that's presented right here when you get back you know the other thing i wanted to mention i think just like you mention this there  i really think that it's been through this pretty quickly if there's any other questions i don't believe i have any more thank you mr suspect if you do it sure you have a little less than two minutes the end of the a person skilled in the art part reference to the scripts of the invention and the last line says it's contemplated that the pen did claims will cover any modifications in embodiments that fall within the scope of the invention absolute board they don't say fold they don't stay extensionally complete they say simply alphanumeric keyboard and i think this case is most closely analogous to the past technologies vs three com case three forty three of thirteen sixty four where they had worked car that they had to determine what car and the truck for said car being something the size of a credit card about the size of a credit card and every example in the specification was something about the size of a credit card that is a credit possibly the size of a credit card that used the terms that was a dictionary case when we pulled rectangular out of the dictionary you're probably right it was a well we did it but that was before philips and we've since said we don't use no where in it we are defining alphanumeric keyboard there are no words of definition there is no statements of definition and the term or the phrase of course used in completely misquoted is filled with conditional languages and even th language column to the that you that you quoted to me says things like post telephones sun and post and typically it doesn't say exclusively and so if you want to define it give