it did without argument on the briefs today namely appeal number zero six s thirty one ninety five white versus united states postal service and appeal number zero six dash thirty to sixty five that the judge ward misinterpreted the notion of real time but i couldn't see where he ever said what you said he said so can you point us to the specific language in his opinion where he mangled the notion of real time in the way that you argue a great length in both  on on any number of different data points of information that the system will your specification makes it so clear that the president invention is a method of scheduling a vehicle in real time to passengers for not just passengers not just for the simultaneous it's not talking about on the blog except in one environment which is disposing specifications of throughout the specification and talks about but it's got to have been trucking companies that call their trucks on the on the fly and tell them stop in pittsburgh and pick up something to to go because of the knowledge of the invention your six two patent it talks about the last three or four steps predicting in a reliable time generating a schedule think putting the predicted current updating said generated claim the prosecutor disclaimed coverage of anything that wasn't real time he quite sensibly distinguished the prior art by saying that's not at all what my invention is about the worth of the claim could decide anything but in light of that prosecution history whatever they otherwise might have meant they no longer mean because he told us they don't mean that you are you're talking of deficient acceptable and well and numerous places in the specification but if you just want new when you characterize your invention and say my invention is real time prospect of unfulfilled requests why why wouldn't we  between what it was all historical transportation schedules and transportation schedules are in the making based on evolving dad so when you complain that in part b at the bottom of page ten that he used the word prospective and say that that was  maybe it's a patent on how one reads his use of the word perspective in that i read it is simply meaning not the old or historical six immutable schedule and if that's all it means i don't see any problem or conflict here then your honor i believe what he's down to the conclusion is is prospected and that's the only piece of information that every one of your independent claims has is the first step that you minute and a half ago that fulfill requests could also be considered so i'm asking you to illustrate the case were fulfilled requests would be would result in a change in the months the the passenger or freight demand requests increased because a new factory is built in iraq and just bring workers down or there's a new transportation must relate to transportation service recommended for from a terminal to the host of or the transportation service ayers let's let's look at the one thing that they do point out that suggests something in the direction of what they argue and that is column eleven where they talk about the process of figures one form five is continuous iterative maybe periodic a periodic or continuously operating in the background q those requests are still perspective they have not been fulfilled if they had been filled you would be creating what the prior calls a fixed schedule which is a schedule that that project demand need all the claim to start with the request right absolutely should resign of the defining point for the rest of the client absolutely on this this construction turns on the text of the claims as just plain correctly pointed out the language demand that these requests be respected their turn request itself how can you work something that's already transpired it's clear that or quest is perspective not only that the only way that you can pre determined profit value based on said the tree you see transportation requests is generated if those requests are prospective because the only way you can ensure a profitable result example round schedule their original instruction was that time will travel between the departure and destination location reading the last time from from departure to to the destination now over construction which is a red line strikeout version of the do supports construction which we never saw before so the reply really is a transportation timetable for the vehicle travelling along its respective route i take it the main problem is that you didn't have a chance to break this since it only came up in their reply brief the main problem i think is the judge ward never had a chance to adjudicate discuss was never presented to him absolutely so that's really it's not so much that it's unfair  you it's one less one might say it's unfair to the trial judge because he couldn't avoid the error because he was never presented with the option that's now said to be the only correct option there are both two separate forms of w and we can't review a decision he didn't make that was clearly ordered error and by not presenting this report with that in the first instance the way that if there are i'm happy to answer any questions about anything in terms of prejudice i have a little worry that you when you go away but they asserted against somebody else to float around out there isn't there some value in making an earlier validity claim so