two competing plain an ordinary meanings of claim one of the one hundred and ninety three patent the district court erred in picking the more restrictive of the two meanings the district court wrote in a requirement that appears nowhere in the claim language itself and nowhere in the specification specifically that in order to determine a relative location between two balloons you must use a vector drawn between them in of the locations of the balloons on the map by the determining staff and that seems to me to be correct that it requires something more than tipped up language a location that is measured in relation to some other object or reference point and that is measured in language is specifically a vector that if you look at the district court what relative location s but that's not actually what dr hans man's opinion was dr hans man's opinion went on from that particular point the district court actually truncated the sentence dr hans  continued that sentence and wrote i see it as a vector measured as the distance and direction from one object to another so we contend your honor that it's not just that the district court rejected our view but the district court picked up dr hans man's view which wrote limiting language into the actual language of the claim now with respect to our view our view is that the plain language i think is going on here and you can tell me wrong or whether i'm right that you could have a system and it is my understanding that contends that that's what it is in which you plot of the absolute  understand your contention is that under the google system something more is being done that you take that map and you really can germination at the balloon is i think not quite your honor that that and let me demonstrate that point by the diagram that's in our brief in the blue brief at page twelve or appendix one thousand one hundred and six and that's the the small world graphical user interface and if we take a look at that and mapping that back to the exact plain language here's what that diagram does the st thing that that diagram does is it determines the location of the target balloon and that's building to forty one in the in the center bottom of the page and that building to forty one the small world g y specifically articulate as the exact claim language describes what that g u i then does is it is it determines the location of three other balloons to forty two to fourteen and to forty in relation to that target balloon you can see data to determine the relative position but that in order to infringe you don't actually have to use that information about relative position that seems to me not correct well your honor the issue the issue it seems to me is that there is no specification in the claim language or anywhere in the one hundred and ninety three or six hundred and seventy eight specification that that that says how precise that relative location needs to be determined we can see from the face of the g a y to forty is mostly to the east of to forty one and a little bit south we can see the two hundred and forty two is to the west and north and we can see that for example to forty is  closer to forty one than to fourteen now that do you i never articulate the latitude and longitude for two hundred and forty two dollars to fourteen dollars or to forty those are the exact neighbor balloons that the claim language calls out and so that gee why does exactly what the plain language says we need to in french it determines the location of the target balloon and then it it it it determines the location of neighbor balloons relative to that nowhere in the specification does anywhere in the patent does it say you've got to determine that location to within an inch a yard a mile or any other particular amount nor does it say that you have to determine direction at three points off the compass or any other specific direction and that's what google actually contends here is that the patent language requires both distance and direction from that target blown so so we think that the small world g y demonstrates not just that that small world can infringe but that it does in french are so that the question here it seems to me that's presented is is g p s mapping within the full scope of the claim language within claim one of the one hundred and ninety three and we say that it was the specification of the one hundred and ninety three mentions determine the platforms geographic coordinates and that of course is the language that's picked up in claim one determine so the specification itself suggests that a g p s can be used to do the determination that google now claims the locations of one or more neighbor balloons could be determined using g p s and so your honor that that exactly that part of the specification from the six hundred and seventy eight describes exactly what the small world g u i does  that i've just spent some time walking through and around ok i asked this question so one of the things that i guess occurred to me in reading through this was that it seemed to me that all of your arguments about exactly what was doing the determining were directed to particular software systems that were doing something and not to the engineer sitting in front of the screen and looking at a small world graphical user interface that you haven't made an argument that the engineer by looking at this image is the agent of doing the determining well  that's actually i think that's exactly what's going on which is to say that if you look at our expert's opinion at footnote three hundred at appendix one thousand and forty four he writes visualization into google's fleet control system particularly focused on allowing google's flight engineering team to track and operate a fleet of balloons so this g y is not sitting there in the abstract and engineers actually using it to determine i observe the locations of other balloons as input to whatever mechanistic operation he then wants to apply to them  manually move them if i don't i don't recall seeing in your briefing a argument that the determining is being done by the person sitting in front of the small world screen who notices that this balloon is a little bit southeast of the target balloon for purposes of taking any action and i don't i'm not sure you made an accusation allegation to that effect which may be the difference between the ability to look at the map and determine something and actually doing it terms of our experts opinion saying small world is actually being used to manage a google slate of balloons right but it may not be used to be using the visually of a little relation spatial relation between the target and the neighbor i think he must be from the face of the small world g o i or well but my time must be doesn't really raise an issue that i understand what  answer i think there are other places in mr pollan's opinion where he specifically articulated i think it's right around footnote thirty one thousand and forty four in which google engineers use small the oregon dispenser well you're correct that the paragraph that you articulated does your honor and i don't think we're using oregon oregon dispatcher source code as a source of o one genuine issue of material well i don't know that i don't think two hundred and thirty one necessarily does i i do think that footnote three hundred and paragraphs one hundred and sixty five and sixty six of poland do raise in other words can it what in footnote three hundred dollars there is a specific allegation that small world is a visualization focused on allowing google's flight engineering team to track and operate a fleet of balloons and it's that operation so there's no statement in the expert report that the engineers actually use this data to determine or more neighbor balloons relative to the determined location of the target but once there's no disagreement about how the system works when determines the latitude longitude and altitude of every blue moon in the regard to what happened to the other balloon i suppose in theory that could be the case and i guess do some tension is that that is the case you don't care whether other buildings just move you only care whether the explicitly that the go go system does not make a determination of relative position i mean he seems addressed himself to particular features of the system but i don't see an overall statement that hundred and five through three hundred and seven dr poems report that plotting does not qualify as a determination of the relative locations neighboring ok i understand that but theory that it was posited in the answer to an earlier question that the you are that the graphical user interface a small world somehow meets this because it location is relative to every other balloons location expressed in the same manner the theory based on small world is certainly not one that they're actually presented in the not one that they working dispatcher algorithms as well and none of the those operate the lives those aren't alone manually by flight engineers looking at a small world  map and not user interface in order to move them so the problem that they have here is that step two requires this determining locations relative to a target balloon and then step three of course requires determining desired movements of the target but one based on those relative positions is relatively patients and there's no point at which in step three an engineer is relying on anything that would be happening in step two in order to make or make the bones move slide and i think that's the reason the practical reason really there is a logical reason why you determining location a relative to be is defining a vector from one to the other in either direction the direction doesn't matter but distance and direction and i think your re what the district court adopted and a vector just to the degree of precision with which direction and distance are being measured i think it may be a degree of precision question there's no place in the district court judge's opinion where she says a i'm limiting this claim to a particular vector or a particular calculation of distance and between between those two but there are also other ways one could imagine doing it whether you give an angle for example or some other methodology i imagine there are various different ways  ok i'd like to talk just briefly about this issue of whether there's a claim construction going on here and google moved for summary judgment based on the plain meaning of the claim language which again question before us is whether the limited constructions they offered was correct or not yes your honor we completely agree with that and with respect to the intrinsic records that judge freeman looked at and in resolving found that it was not we think correctly based on the intrinsic record before her that mr liebeler points to the fact that the specification talks about  s step two requires determining the locations of neighboring balloons relative to a target alone and that's not something that g p s plotting alone there certainly was nothing in the one hundred and ninety three patent that the judge found that warranted departing from the plain meaning of the claim language and interpret in the phrase determine the location of one balloon relative to the determined location of the target but one to encompass plotting balloons on the same map without more without some actual form of determination and again dr poland never identified  you thank you your honor judge back i'd like to address the question that you asked mr camber there was a claim construction that's going on here and space data contends that it was google that actually wrote a limitation into the actual language the claim itself doesn't say anything about a vector or any measurement it says determining and space data is entitled to the full scope of determining unless there is some disavowal in the prosecution history or l y going on none of that is going on in this patent and space data is entitled to the entire scope of determining which which includes space data is plain meaning that we offered to the district court of summary judgment i don't want to point t court to the specification in the six hundred and seventy eight at column twenty two lines fifteen and sixteen that specification reads the locations of the one or more neighbor balloons could be determined by using s that seems to me to be a reference to step two as mr camber points out of what the what the patent claim requires which is to say determining the locations of those neighbor balloons i agree that it doesn't say relative to the target balloon but it can't be anything else unless there anymore questions from the panel i would s