it and that those tests were and of the compilations within them and that link is a no but that's all attorney argument in the absence of any evidence to establish that you you started your sentence by saying one skill in the art would recognise that these tests methodologies while i'm not asking on the are you might be but it this is argument you're giving it's not testimony and that's the problem that i have is failing to see the evidence to these claims did issue because not all the limitations were disclosed not talking about anticipation by public records talking about the unsettled by which relates to sale of the patented invention well this was not a sale of the patented invention that's my question why no this was a separate earlier technology that answer and developed it was focused on a local area network and used individual computers which require physical keys to run the programs the system that's covered by the patent pending claim for never going to put in service that necessarily included the to the right and to one computer but then you're talking about a central server and one portion of the central server seems to be  dealing with a local area network but there's a lot more happening here well in all of this is taking place one job so it is used all system in the client computers down below are all in the construction sites right separate construction sites and they're all coming into this central server issue through communication software issue and then there is one local area network off to the side but that almost seems to suggest that the rest is something other than a local area network doesn't it the why derian network of some kind well the fact is i that there's a distinction if you're looking in it or why do you never work in an internet you're going to be using certain technologies or tools such as a web server but just because you have a local area network doesn't mean you can't use that same it's  but only evidence in this case indicate that web equals internet right i mean that's what the dictionary definition said that's what all of the documents that the district court indicated where there a that this picture is what you're talking about there's nothing else anywhere and it would support the idea that the reference to the web could be referring to a local area network that's  but what is the connection between the client soup then on the various construction sites that's what we're really worried about isn't it no your honor the issue with was there any evidence besides the sa a clear local connection and why wouldn't the same be true of this that we're looking at in this model for data transfer no q a i'm looking good bit of it we're all yes this diagram which is the one thing you base your summary judgment on the one the internet the web or are they coupled this server in some kind of a direct local network like i'm connected to my law clerk up on the balcony the answer is yes your honor the client computers as we argued for the district court are connected to or coupled to the wide area network where interesting question is a couple does that require the connection to be via the internet or can you just be coupled to a computer which happens to have internet capability which seems to be your art right if interesting that the server is coupled to the right area networks separate from the computers being coupled to the wide area network so it seems that the big claim talks about the server of being coupled to the wide area network that is clear yes but to say it says the client computers are to be coupled in the same way well it uses essentially the same words server coupled to the wide area network client computers coupled to the wide area network addresses both identically in the same way doesn't that suggest that they you about the discontented claims and i don't mean the ones the lower court held to be indefinite but i'm a little bit baffled by the lower court's ruling which seems to be that the patent is invalid and there's a focus in the lower court on the use a clean one in thirteen but there seems to be no independent now is this at all in the lower court opinion of claims two through eleven the deep pending claims that tend from claim one or i ask your opponent the question he says that he interprets the lower court's opinion as invalidating under one no to all of those  thousand and one many were described as required testing in table sixty one thousand nine hundred ninety seven contract well you don't not all of them were and you don't even allege that all of them are so a lot of the things that are specifically listed independent claims to through the lead then what's troubling me is that this appears to me to be an obviousness motion because you don't even allege that these things are disclosed in their entirety in the contract now certainly something you and i both representations of these tests were well known by two thousand and one not that these tests articulated in claims to through eleven arts closed in the contract but that they were your assertion is that they were  if you go to the next step is that your agreed to provide quality control services on aggregate this is all part of the services that were in the area in the contract documents before the district court these are all trashed that were being provided to would contracted to