the court i'd like to begin with the brand and i b m references which are attached to the red race and particularly on appendix five sixty which is figure two of the brown patent then i'd like to turn to the plain construction dispute the summary judgment in this case of obviousness was improper no matter how the claim construction dispute is resolved in part that is because starting with brown  to not disclose any of the four steps of claim one of the zero four five patent starting with the first step comparing it to figure to grant the first step in claim one requires that there be provided forms to a form use or over a network here in the brown tab and we see in the upper right hand corner a figure to a police records database that's where the police reports are and are around however is science as to how the police reports as opposed to the inquiries by police officers on the street how the police records are entered there's no disclosure in brown that the police records are entered using a network or using forms so that's the first step which is missing in brown turning to figure for brown which is on a five sixty two this shows the second step a claim one is also missing and the second step of claim one one of the two central features that are claims here which is really the gist of this invention and that namely is the three function template this invention provides a second step that the institution is provided with a web template that allows the institution to specify the message to specify the recipients for that message and to specify the fields and field values that will trigger sending the message so those are the three functions this web template allows an whether the notification which is it will be by email or pager so it allows identifying the means of notification but the means of notification is simply that the media the medium here is not the message the pattern is talking about a message specifically content that you can specify the institution can specify ferenc than in figure five the pattern gives an example where it says that the person using the three function template types in and says i  will here's another recruit from a fellow george something to that effect so the user using the template specified the content of the message browne does not disclose that nor does it disclose method using the web template and then tying it linking it to a particular match criteria that will trigger the message turning the claim to step three and four step three a claim one talks about comparing data entered by a form user brown doesn't have that entering by a form user and therefore it necessarily cannot have to the third step of that relies on that and the fourth step is upon detecting a match delivering the specified message that four starting with step two the three function template i b m like graham allows the person using this this form here to specify the means of notification and in i b m it refers to  specifically as quote means of notification of a column to line forty seven it specifies how the user wants to be notified but not the message it's less powerful than the invention it does not allow the user of this i b m system or brown is not able to using the form to customize the message to customize message i want to send it by finding a hundred meters track star i want to send its of these people on the time the athletic department hears a customized messages i want to send if that track star was applying the safe harbor or cornell is is is you know music expert or something and then i have a special message that i want to send a special people neither i b m nor brown have that instead m and brown are essentially is google plus alerts these are search engines search tools that allow automatic repetition of the search and then i'm sure that someone saying oh you did a search on monday you were searching for particular you know on sale barn federal circuit well a new tape came out on thursday years an alert that's what brown and i b m are our patent is did nothing like that so that that's the first point that even putting aside t claim construction summary judgment here was improper and that and for procedural reasons as well the district court didn't even mention our expert report if you add up the many missing elements of the steps of the claim you combine th with the concrete expert testimony we had from mr mack araby pointing out these differences combine that with the clinton been in evidence standard combined that would rule fifty six requirements it really adds up to a trot not not to summary judgment now so we're asking the court that vacate the summary judgment but we're also asking the court to correct the claim construction of the court as does remain and and and that i mention that the this is invention inventions not a that you could advertise in an infomercial but it is an important lever invention and what it really combines is this three function template which is on the interface side with a novel engine underneath and the engine underneath is a comparison engine which which resulted from looking at the problem differently the problem of the poor was i do a google search for on sale barclays on monday if the fell for it came out with a new case and two they went they need to search again while some people are motivated to search every day but some people are so having this notion of repeating the search in automatically that that was known and that was fine but the the approach to the problem was how do we make it more efficient how do we make it more efficient searching the full database searching all of the court decisions for on sale bars over and over and over again that was the prior art how do we do that data how do we do the repeated search mr woolston and the other inventors step back and say i don't want to go  i don't want to repeat the search at all what if we don't search the database again and he came up with a technique that allows responsible and improved responsiveness allows being integrated with the three function template without ever repeating a may have tens of thousands of applications coming in to a college you may have hundreds of recruiter profiles for criteria they're looking for right see eight hundred the people are looking for track stars musicians whatever in our invention you never compare two bits of that information more than once in the reason is because let's say that all the coaches and all the teachers got their criteria in before the application season to open so  good what are invention does is it intercepts the streams of incoming applications and one by one it compares them to each of the search criteria for each of the match criteria and you can do that in memory doesn't have to do a database search and in fact  doesn't do a database search so it does of comparison one by want and then send out all the messages as needed and then the next one comes in in a compares one by one it never does the same comparison twice now what if we hire a new track coach and the new track coach doesn't want a two hundred metres they want a five thousand metre star from my school they put in their match criteria in the middle of the recruiting season so the patent provides for that and this is what claymates all about the patent provides optional that if i have a new match criteria i will use that not as the not as a match criteria which i will going forward but to catch up with those five thousand applications that came in before the new coach was hired i'm going to use at the search the database but i only do it once so even then when you use that new match criteria the surge historical information in the database you never do that again you will never use that match criteria to search that they that claim a has clearly the traditional method traditional in the in the repetition which was the traditional method and what claim made is doing is it adding that step just like the specification in the special circumstance of a new match criteria if you don't enter any new fire no we submit that would be a reasonable reading by a person of skill in the art if one ripped the claims out of the specification never read the invention it still wouldn't be a reasonable reading but particularly after reading the way the as the completed form is received and therefore yes that is not a requirement of claim want however that that doesn't mean the claim one isn't directed to the invention in which forms were received and then compared to the match criteria and then you waited for the new form so in terms of and i guess i'm unclear how is that different than the traditional how is that different a data entered by a form user to the specified criteria and then you send a man and then you send out your message if there is there is a diff there is a match because you are comparing the new the data to the match criteria and then you get your conclusion your resulting message there is no need to go back and do is search it would make sense to do a search in this infrastructure where your this this  simply wouldn't make sense to be submitted for the person still on the ark to read the claim that so clearly described is described using a combination engine not a search engine criticizes repeated searches for the person still the art say oh they're only they they claim what they criticize message automatically be sent to one or more recipients he did not read into that claim anything about a particular process of comparing he did not read into that cla one critical thing that they have to do and that is that the form data has to be new it is not in that playing anywhere it is not required to be new but it is required to be new if they use their counter intuitive method in ten judge sparks to realize that because he said  twenty really just calls perceptibly comparing one user submission to one set of search criteria to determine if there's a match he did not find it and that claim does not have where those submissions come from when they come from or how you compare i guess i think i appreciate what you're saying that i was with respect to cling to the place else in this plane is shown background and brown specifically shows that feature when it uses what's called the real time frequency search and that is one of what i think is the key to this whole thing is when brown discovered that i'm going to turn all must searching function as soon as i get that new message since i get the new report i'm turning on that's what he's talking about around turns on his his searching function as soon as a new report comes in he he also further does more than x he does not put it in the complete database for the seat of service to complete database to find out which they say we have to with the traditional approach he creates a special second small database and that's where the new message goes in the new the new report the new data goes in that he searches that sage he says pressure saves time to say operating overhead memory capacity he improves the system by using that second little database now if you use his real time frequency he automatically put it in that small database as soon as you receive that you know with a new date in there so when you get through the ground he's basically comparing the search criteria that he's got store operation that he talks about his reply brief for his his reliance on comparisons being a not a search and because it disclosed using a comparison engine you could be comparing with a search engine in with a new date them since it's in brown absolutely that's how we function that's that that's one of the things that the judge found very substantial in brian that and the fact that he used the sm one new data but what are they doing with it they're searching the criteria database in order to find the answers a match that's a traditional search every one of the elements that they said in the past were not there we lay it out we cite to a column in line where it is until you can see if they are now they say the expert their expert basically gave an opinion based on looking for words he used if you've got to the exact word in order to disclose for example brown says the message the specified message can go out to the policeman that created the profile or a group he says oh no it doesn't disclose sending a message to more than one recipient because it says group and everybody knows the group is one e mail address and and and the and the form only has one spot for an email address so it can't be sending out to multiple  that is the kind of logic you use to say that the limitations are not there they are there they're not sharp we do the same for the abbey young reference also but let's go back to the logic in what i think judge sparks did when he said playing one is so broad he looked at playing one it's a very general terms i don't see any restrictions in your nothing about anything he just compare a to b if it's a match i says you're the method of playing one and the new data as it comes in is a mediately compared to the search requests that that's got to be what they're talking about this counterintuitive the thing is that you taking one single new data form and you compare it to the search request he said to make it work though you have to have a database you have to have a database of the criteria stored search criteria has to be their heart it doesn't work so it has to have a database stored database of circuitry then he said traditional search everybody knows how that works you take your search criteria got to have the database for the spores in order to have something to search so judge parks looks at it and says claim point doesn't have anything about databases it could have two databases it could have two databases or you can have a counterintuitive with a database over here or you can have the other traditional server database so we're not limited to one comfortable and that's just plain construction and he was right he was correct well there's another part of specification that talks about optional e conducting a search to find or to court to handle the situation where you have a new search criteria and an old database full then he said well get it it doesn't say search engines but i know it has to be a search engine to do that and therefore the search engine can be compared but if you reclaiming your replay make the  if you really claim made one of his arguments is well that was an optional step and yeah it's a dependent playing but it's optional and it doesn't i don't want to waste it said the comparing stare at the method of doing well he said he looked at the differences in what the analysis primarily were brown and said i really don't see a whole lot of difference here and he said it's got a database of must be additional search i'm saying that particular database is there because it's able to use different frequencies and if you use the monthly frequency then you need that database to store the new incoming messages until you get rich to do the search intuitive method and the defendant in the red forty five page fifty three conceded that that point that the district court itself found terms of claim eight claim eight does not require repeated search of the database it does not that the traditional method that was being distinguished of the patent starts off complaining about is that you have to go back and keep searching the same data and if you have ten thousand entries and you keep searching the same thing over and over and over that can be inefficient take up processing family the invention as described and is claimed and claim made the other claims never repeats the same search of the same database so if a claim you want to work construed to encompass a system that searched the database repeatedly when a new entry came in search the old historical data then it would be covering something we never described because we in our flowcharts in our description never happened and finally by may the in terms of of message the three function template that was not something we came up with today that is in our expert declaration and in particular any of our expert declaration in opposition a summary judgment at a seven forty eight the forty nine eight seven fifty six eighty six seven fifty eight arabiya explained why brown and i b m do not disclose the three function web template did not disclose the ability for the use the web template to specify the message in the district court never mention the expert declaration not once and never mentions of the feature that or the other features that we describe just focused on the counter to the thank you very s