itself indicated packet based systems are fundamentally different than switch telecommunications systems because switch telecommunications systems require a pre determined channel over which a call flows  hallmark of a packet based system is that they do not have created german channels well isn't isn't the point of the claim construction that that that it's not an either or proposition that you can have  and essentially now for the definition of switch telecommunications system if you look at column one of the specification the overweight the inventor draws a distinction between switch totally negation system and communication system and explicitly separates out that a gram or packet based systems from being a part of switched telecommunication systems i guess and it isn't or is there such a thing as a hybrid i believe there could be a hybrid because it was listed in the specification as specifically not being part of what was part of the invention of the zero eight the specification talks about elements by allowing elements of a package based system to be included in the definition of the switched telecommunications system it then undercut the claim language in claims one thirteen and twenty seven what what prevents a telecommunications system from having both should just in the in the datagram they still but nothing prevents a telecommunications system can have both elements however the patent here does not cover an invention for both of us the patent here covers an invention which you can use the internet address and information in this case it was a domain name system information to get the address information but the patent claims and the specification specifically require that that call go from a calling party all the way to a call destination it can dip into the switch that sense that's why communication system as defined and expressed in this package is something that is a broader concept and which telecommunications to get is the spend the other side points out that the whole thrust of the patent illustration and they're all about this combination some merger and error mixing of telecommunication systems and the internet in order to transmit calls you know using ip addresses so that the whole character of the pattern is about some mixing and matching it is for what it's actually doing is shooting the address information from the internet system can't have a hybrid for this patent dependent upon your argument about what to call destination is so no it is not contingent spread now twice use that as your explanation as to why this can't be a hype or maybe a misunderstanding of the courts question but you're saying it can't be a hybrid this happened because your call destination has to be the end user so i'm saying is there an argument that the call was able to do based on the claim construction was take that and then have calls go from a calling party to any point along the way in the call that in this rendered the term meaningless as t rerouting right but i'm not sure there's a rerouting here because the call is going from one point all the way eventually it's going to reach there calling cory hopefully for the calling party our position is not good to have on the calling for a start in the middle of sprint's network and that's what happened here and that was allowed by the claim construction on switch totally occasions system because they could argue that those calls did not have to go over the traditional switch telecommunications system but they could use them could have been going over a packet based system may i think maybe the way to think about this is comcast proposed and  the court accepted that a is a switch education system b is a daydream system as b is neither that's what the court what's written proposed because they could see what was going to happen is that a is a telecommunications system and b cannot be part of it and that's what we're proposed because they saw that that's what they're going to try to do and that undercuts the claim language and  specification of what was being done here because now the effect of this is immense a patent it was originally covering using senate calls over a switch telecommunications system the traditional system using internet addresses now covers any telecommunications system that uses any internet addressing anywhere and is now covers almost all telecommunications system and that's what's happened here this question is clear who comcast will cover pre judgment interest for a period of time when two of the three patents at issue did not exist  let me see if i understand some of the proceeds to correct all the parties agreed only that there would be a single hypothetical negotiation for the purpose of your question i will say yes ok and then the very first agreed that any award by the jury would be based on a lump sum basis that is that is correct that is correct so why do you do agree to that i mean i think that most to the your participation in the really battles against your argument today and i can understand why they were feels that way you know contrast position which the district court agreed to is that it relies on the hypothetical negotiation and the book of wisdom and that's what they're basing that's a hypothetical negotiation and the book of wisdom or judicial constructs they are trolls are used to approximate the damage that occur from infringement but his judicial cars trucks th calculation and the pre judgment interest calculation where you have agreed that the damages for the nine one six would be reflected in a in two thousand and six hypothetical negotiation and lump sum bro just object to the fact that he referred to those other two patterns in that in the order because the reality is he could have awarded the exact same amount on the night when six in fact would have had to have well no except except for the evidence at trial we can't get into that all we know is that for the nine one cents there was a lump sum amount putting aside we don't know what the lump sum amount was for the nine one six we've all we know we know that all three patents to using the tools additional construct the book was of a hypothetical negotiation they came up with an approximation of what the damages would be those damages awarded after they were based on a contract this before but now what comcast has come back and said is we want to prejudge an interest in all three of these this was exactly this what the group one case just respect to switch to telecommunications network it's crystal clear in the specification that they switched telecommunication that work is distinct from a communications system communication system is can be a data graham entirely based system i think that was your point george on milly when you ask the question why can't they switch telecommunications system be a hybrid it can't that's precisely what patent which is to merge internet technology with existing switch telecommunications network because the other side would say well what the real intent is to use aspects of the internet computer network to help al a communication that's purely something like a p t s you're i guess i would i actually see it differently based on their appeal papers what they are you win their appeal is that a switch telecommunications system has to be a pre determined bear switches etc etc which were of course means under bedrock federal circuit law that it can comprise other things and then the question becomes what other things we say in our brief that figure fifteen shows the interconnection these you are i determining computers are distinct from the switch telecommunications system but that just goes to setting up a call it doesn't say whether you can't have a data grant base system invention where they talk about these daisy chain systems that that existed prior to the low inventions and our and our point there is what the what mr logan has co inventor said is these old daisy chain things they're different from what we're doing here and it's not a disavowed it's exactly the opposite it's saying let's try to merge the new internet technologies with with all p s t n technology and we believe figure fifteen demonstrates that conclusively let me turn to call destination alicia runners have any other questions about the switch telecommunications system they do the other side in their graves pointing out that you text messaging and not voice call i have to say your honor that's not my favorite reference for us to support our view i mean there is an argument that s m s is in a broad definition of a car i was wondering if  control signaling i'll get up over my technological skis clear my understanding your honor is s s seven is simply a a switching mechanism that is is utilized to interconnect the systems and i don't know that it says anything specifically about what a switch telecommunications system is within the meaning of the pattern how do you respond to their your friend on the other side when he says that really what you're saying is that it can be anything that's not sure data system and if if if there's even any access to switches that that that you would cover i think that's probably accurate you mean the the definition of switch telecommunications system basically says if you have switches a switch system that is used to initiate a call through a bare channel that's a switch telecommunications system the use of the use of the word compris i wouldn't when you're talking about the switch telecommunications system in the context of the claims talking about initiating a call in one in thirteen and setting up a call and claim twenty seven it doesn't say anything about what may happen somewhere down apply here what they're basically doing is to put one of my former partners as the putting the rabbit in the hat they say that a switch telecommunications system has to be a pre determined bear channel and and because  that therefore it can't include anything else well but that's it's only if you accept their new definition of what a switch telecommunications system is that you can basically obliterate the word comprising from the expressed definition  quote in their briefs a number of times any point along the way any point along the path any point along the route that the two things that are in the record for the court to look at are the testimony of our expert d who testified that it is a police that the system routes the call to which by definition means there's an ip address that is generated by this d n s signaling that routes the call to a specific destination in one case it's the s p c the session order controller in another it's the media gateway controller and another it's a convergent server that ultimately free to mac address and those are routed to locations it's actually captured in the record and i can probably find a cite in my closing argument i made the following the nalla g d analogy is if you're flying from philadelphia to egret alaska you're going to have and you check your bags and they're going to ask you is this your final destination when it shows you're going to o'hare because nobody flies directly you have multiple legs in your view if you have a router that robs the car it is at a called destination at that before the rowdy yes it call the estimation is where it is routed to so the counter example to their position i think is if i'm flying from philadelphia to boston i only have one destination that's not to say among the call destinations your honor but again these claims are drawn to initiating or setting up a call and and and the testimony at trial was that when you paying a session border controller and routing there net phone server disclosed in an r f c and this is in the record we say today was a call the estimation of course it was and we didn't dispute that and that and that and the patent office accepted that the other testimony in the record was that in their own documentation when they refer to a session border control or they call it our destination and our basic point was look folks because it was ordinary meaning that we put to the jerk in the context of a network to trial and ordinary meaning there was ample evidence in the record for the jury to accept comcast position which was never any path along any point along the path that was never our position let me turn to for parsing actually let me so what am i supposed to do with that there are i respectfully disagree with the characterization of what we said to the patent office during the reexamination sprint was arguing that the references that are discuss look up tables and pre determined destinations was in the references that they were citing which again are not of prakriti or so we can't examine them did not inherently disclose parsing so i think that the way your honor respect think of many examples where you have translating that doesn't include the specific definition of parsing that the parties agreed to in this case the same is true for let me step back i mean what we're what we're talking about is what people now refer to was in them it kind of became synonymous with what the low patmos taught on this during trial and interim and this is the testimony that they point to teach they're really saying is you're mapping you're taking a telephone number and you're in some way currently doing that with a domain name you can do that many many many different ways and what the pattern calls for is parsing to do that and so what what our position is mapping can be this giant universe of things the subset of which is parsing which is what the patent claims require and so explain parsing to me so a person in this particular case  this and what they basically say the pattern is you can use a deterministic algorithm to do this parse and i think the point that dr berger made is you know if according to a grammar it's not like what we think of in the english language it's basically a deterministic set of rules that's what's required and i don't think that's frankly disputed it's not the method of parsing that's at issue it's whether spread can get additional negative limitations read into the claims that i answer your question sufficiently your honor so let me briefly move onto pre judgment interest judge raney put your finger right on the issue they've agreed to a lump sum and they agree to a two thousand and six hypothetical negotiation that's what was put to the jury we have no idea if we can speculate but we have no idea how to just curious does that necessarily mean that the payout would occur in two thousand  six when you have a negotiation two thousand and six that you know the jury verdict is seven point five million your honor i don't know that i've ever actually thought about when the actual dollars would exchange hands but yes i think it would be the pay side that the book of wisdom says you can look forward take account of the future events in your title to get damages based on not as of yet patents so the question for the court isn't believe this is one of the first impression is whether you can get pre judgment interest for that same period the case that mr riopelle referred to and that was cited in their reply before the first time in this group one case if you actually look at that case what ended up period ok the point is if you look at the the opinion it's clear that what they were really saying is because you delayed in curing this deficiency that we're not awarding prejudgment interest it doesn't stand for the proposition that you would not be entitled it is a mapping system so you the accused in here also let me address one other issue on the parsing shoshanna going to be more specific statements what the i don't think we emphasize enough in our briefs but for example let me just give the issue to give one example the p t o initially rejected the oath for six pad because the p t o said parsing is any pre determined association and if you look at the record it eight to five three mean and you know how will judge andrews even instruct the jury in terms of trying to figure out what what more needs to be said beyond the affirmative definition to cabin and  we don't get to put on evidence about that because they've ruled out our claim construction and so then they argue to the jury this system which is translating for a pre determined association infringes well i mean the problem is is that you wanted the court him to have these negative limitations with with no qualification i mean frankly had you asked the court to say it's not mapping without more detail or it's not mapping instructional cost estimate right now both of our read that it's a go to the jury with ordinary meaning ordinary so what you're asking us to say is that no reasonable juror in light of all the testimony proffered could ever conclude that call destination w anything other than that and i know your office no this is again this is not an issue of we're saying that it's a destination versus the destination this is an issue of a destination versus that you can win on this point because you didn't ask for a construction of the claim that is not our business comes a factual determination as to what are called estimations our position is that the term has been rendered meaningless if it goes to the jury and they they have to apply an ordinary meaning they can apply a different meaning but they have to apply some immediately can't return meaningless in this one it's just that the meaning is a location determined by using domain name signalling and maybe not every point along the way is the location that is determined by domain names that might that might be possible that of course construction was never presented to the jury you know but i think there's evidence that that was presented to the jury describing it that way there was but however there was no evidence presented to the jury that distinguished points along the way that were