reservations she will be a wonderful ever productive member of our she's lovely to have him chambers she's smart she's thoughtful she's hardworking she's going to be an excellent addition to the bar and really and that's the critical cousin or case law say that it's not that a reference has to express and say hey we're not going to perform this claim stand it's in not that the reference teaches not teaches a method in which that your issue is that you don't think there's any support for the idea and there's access that it's independent of access of the computer that's correct ok i understand your position i just thought that maybe you were hearing something different with respect to the law maybe requiring that negative limitation has to be expressly told no that's not what i've said i'm not saying that's not what i'm saying at all i'm saying that the negative limitation has asked me if i'm possible for the negative limitation to be performed in this case  there is no evidence either way whether that's whether this limitation is performed or not because there has to be some evidence of that the woman taishan is actually performing so if i could use an analogy let's say a recipe for sugar free brownies of access and the board found that rabinovich doesn't operate independent of access because it helps host access and your example actually goes right to the heart of what church store was asking you about in what you said you weren't arguing you said if somebody said that white substance baking so that doesn't mean one of the other ingredients couldn't be sugar but you're talking about a recipe i've personally i love to cook i've never seen a recipe that doesn't list all the ingredients that are meant to go into it so if sugar isn't listed as  d in gradients but there is in fact a white powder listed and that white powder is determined to be baking soda i don't see how that example of yours differs at all from the concern that you're still had which is that you are requiring the teaching of sugar free even in the absence of sugar being listed as immigrating but in that case you have to look at the other ingredients and one of the other ingredients has to it has to either disclose sugar or not in this case you have to look at you have to look at  peace is the only thing that it did actually construe then it explicitly construed the entire claim imitation we've done in storage of pieces of a complete file and to the extent that it implicitly construed it that construction is on reasonable because it fails to distinguish you don't know me strength pieces of a just the pieces and we've done that we storing the entire file why why was the words reliance on a claim language at least one piece of data stored by a computer unit in a redundant manner why was that wrong i mean it seems to me that the board was looking at it and saying well it says you have to store least one piece in a redundant matter so that covers also storing all the refer to a piece of data later in the claim it refers back to at least one piece that's correct why was the board's construction correct under the promise reasonable construction because the board's construction failed to require be done and storage of that waste one piece of data so redundant so the at the redundant storage must be for formed on the at least one piece is it say it has to be each piece individually redone stored it doesn't say each piece must be redone only if you look at the claims of what the claim say  broken down into a plurality of individual pieces and then the remaining claim language of the first element asserts starting with a set of instructions that's at least one piece of data stored by a computer in a redundant manner well that's referring to is that the one piece example you would expect of i would be driving out of a car dealership with a new car if i showed you a muffler or an engine on a cinderblock that would make no sense to you likewise if i told you that i was buying parts of a new car then in that example you would understand that and if i  die on the table in front of you know a whole pie and i said feel free to take at least one piece with you and you took the whole pie with you you would have taken at least one piece with you yes but i would take you in them in pieces i would have taken the limitation since that's where the argument left off with mr yang and your honour's are correct that the claim says you store or you transfer at least one piece so it can be more than one piece that is transferred and stored and in fact the preamble says that the computer unit stores the complete file and it has the pieces of the file so that language in the preamble also supports that though the use of the word pieces does not preclude the device having the complete file as well and we're operating still at this point under a broad as reasonable construction standard correct that's correct so the broadest certainly is a broader construction to say at least one piece can include the entire thing and it would be to say has to be piece by piece right that's correct around so if the p t o is construction even if i don't agree with it  opera to just storing just one piece as opposed to storing multiple pieces or storing pieces of parts of a file and dr ratner testified that when the pieces are stored out you say there's nothing but figure to actually does words you just made him seem like very distinct and different things well i may have misspoken i did then you as dr ratner explain when you store them the pieces of a file when the transfer occurs using the t ip protocol the file is transferred in pieces and those pieces are then stored on the receiving device and they're organized as dr ratner stated as bytes on the receiving device and bytes are pieces of the file so you do have pieces stored what even when you store the complete file it's stored in pieces organize that bytes and so the specification actually doesn't use the word file anywhere it doesn't use a piece of a war or a piece of a file anywhere listen to him because you're talking so loudly that i'm unable to follow his argument and that's really unfair if you do it again i will ask you to leave the courtroom depending claims three and ten that recite sending and receiving and storing pieces until the complete file has been transferred so that shows that the first claim can't preclude that there is nothing nothing in the first claim that can be construed in a manner that would somehow prevent the transferring and storing of the all of the pieces constituting a complete file you want to address these independently certainly so so i can sort of set the context for this there is an original host in rabinovich that stores a store is a file it then transfers it in pieces over to a second house so if we can consider the first one the original hostess a call the second one host two and then rabinovich says that every host runs this replication algorithm so it's not just the original hosts that would be copying to other hosts but revenge of it says every host autonomous lee runs the replication algorithm so host two would then run this algorithm and if host to when the factors are right such as host to has too much of a load it would then offload the file to another host as well or replicate replicate the file to another host so that it does in fact disclose the second replication that's required by the claims because every host in rabinovich that receives a copy of the file second second replication from host to the host three would be independent of an access of the original host and one thing that a c a c argues broadly in the brief and here today about host access es and what is precluded is not a host access it's an access of the original host and the factors that are disclosed in the algorithm that are valuated our access is what  referred to today as host to or access is directed to host two that pass through host three and that's the variable that's discussed in rabinovich in our b so host two is overloaded with work it needs to replicate a copy of this file so another server can take on part of the burden of service and clients and it looks to where would be a good location the places new replica replication of the file and if most of the requests are coming to host to through those three host who knows that would be a good location i'll put a copy at host three and that can then take on a lot of the burden and so that's what that variable represents and it's explained in both rabinovich and dr ratner also discussed this at appendix six forty four and he explained that it's a predictor of future demand for copies of the file so that's how host who knows that those three would be a good location and none of these variables depend on an access of the original host and as your honor is noted the algorithm sets forth access i believe that's correct your honor and in deciding that then dr ratner explained how that's that's a prediction of the demand on the host three the possible future demand on house three and so that's why host through would be a good location and all of the parameters are set forth in the algorithm and what isn't disclosed there is not a factor that's relied upon as your honour's noted you say what the algorithm relies upon then things not listed are not relied upon or are excluded and the council said today they're not arguing that that the algorithm needs to say what it excludes but that's actually exactly what they argued in their reply brief they underlined x and exclude and they say rabinovich doesn't say exclusivity that fact or the access of the original host when in fact it's not listed anywhere in the algorithm so it is excluded and then going back to the pieces issue the first thing i want to point out is that the preamble to distinguish is a piece from a complete file these are two separate things if i could  individual piece and looks at each individual piece and then puts for example eight into these specific pieces and each of these specific cells now possibly could look at other pieces as well and put them into these cells but what it's doing is it's looking at the pieces result only doesn't break up and break up any files it doesn't look at any particular piece or the claim requires you to look at the pieces i thought we were talking about at least one piece of data store by a computer even in a redundant matter right the