incorrectly construed user interface module and several respects it improperly limited user interface module to direct communications only and it improperly required the user interface module to be physically part of the beverage dispenser now the case implicates a lot of important legal principles which is well established  enables communication between the user and of the spencer and with respect to the user identification the way i read the record that is receive information received by the touch screen but the touch screen doesn't do anything with it so i guess i'm wondering with respect to that theory how is it that the touchscreen is enabling communication  when it doesn't communicate the user identity anybody you're under the user interface module is recited in claim eleven  it isn't correct i understand that the touch screen does receive the user identity but is it correct that it doesn't do anything with it it doesn't communicate it anywhere else well the user is that true it if that's not true that it doesn't do anything with it your honor it does to do a variety of things with the information so the touch screen is on the outside of the dispenser housing user walk can walk up to the to the touch screen and the fact that it's a touch screen the user can compress certain areas of it and get a reaction from my question my question is about the user identity what does the touchscreen do with the user identity information if it use it receives the user identity information and the beverage and the beverage mixes that the user has has previously set up to correspond to their favorite mixes and it presents those presents those that users mixes on the screen when they hit it does not present the user's identity on the screen  it presents the beverage information on the screen it does not gated without using answer my question it does not present the user's identity on the screen i think that's correct your honor it doesn't it doesn't give the user's name but the beverage identif ers are presented and the claim only resized receive the user identity not do anything more with the user identity it doesn't have to communicate in the claim simply resize the user interface module configure it does that by being a touch screen that the user interacts with the entire set of session for customizing a beverage with this with this accused product is called a handshake and there's a couple of record exhibits that describe very succinctly you know how that works the to the beverage ones the ones the user walks up to the beverage dispenser scans the mobile app and then information of course spawning to that user's favorite beverage mixes are sent down to the to the machine and then present then transfer to the user interface touch screen and beverage it does those things and it does more then that it then presents the beverage options to the user that's not recited by the client language but that it does do that what about what about your other theory not but the app the after is the app is a piece of software that coca cola makes and distributes you know so only designed designed to be used with the freestyle machines so it is it is part of the free style dispenser system required mints of a case called until the end in terms of just providing the software but not the cell phone themselves or well we're not we're not alleging anything about the hardware the phone we're only alleging that the the that the freestyle mobile application which is software that coca cola creates and distributes that that is a component satisfies the user interface module imitation so we don't i mean that is the the app could be on on the phone it could be on an i pad it could be on something we're not we're not calling any of that other hardware that is i am familiar with that case somewhat your honor i do recall them talking about that in that context that's not an argument that coca cola has advanced in this in this lawsuit to date maybe it's something that  they latch on to later but they haven't made any argument of that nature at this point so it hasn't been any development below in the district court about about that can the user of that product can identify and sell to the beverage dispenser instead the user uses a cell phone to log into covered calls web site and tells the website which coca cola freestyle dispenser he is standing that the user interface of of calling eleven can receive this information this identity information from anywhere literally anywhere but there's nothing in the spec or anywhere else in the intrinsic brecker disappoint the notion of user interface module can receive the user's identity or the beverage identifier anywhere else but the user and the case that this court has has this court case convolve or says come back computer  i'm sorry to interrupt i'm finding this confusing and that's not your fault it's probably mine but we're talking i know we're talking about plain construction and i know this case is confusing because all of the claims construction arguments seem to merge with all of the infringement arguments looking at the accused product but can we start can you go back and start with what the district court held in his claim construction i mean to pinpoint the you are that he says because of the word comprising it must be a physical component of the beverage dispenser and the other thing he concluded was near and far and you know what i'm talking about can you defend those because i'm having i have a concern the judge held that it was a component of the beverage dispenser that's controversial but what he was trying to identify or trying to establish there is that it could not be something the problems with the district court's claim construction what i was asking was whether under the patentee cone claim construction of the bluster of the touchscreen whether infringement and i'm sorry to make this up for one second but the infringement theory is that the user interface or what he calls the blister computer which we will just be the best the user interface but the saying it may make sense but i claim it's very broad here and the specification is gary straw so your statement may make sense as a commonsense proposition but what is there in the now the directly or indirectly that we find in kumble was from the prior district court's construction from its two thousand and five marchman order but the the the federal circuit user interface just because the user must position a cursor on the screen using a mouse for example such that the user is interfacing with the mouse and the mouse is interfacing with the computer the word indirectly was not meant under to the construction and that is that the information had to come from the user or there was no purpose for having the added to the user as part of the term user interface same thing applies here and you know could our telephone line and it is directly to the user interface rather than up through a the internet or through the sender system to a server to the communication device and then down to the user interface terms of direct and indirect infringement if we're talking about the cell phone here i mean we we obviously mr perry mentioned that we sorry nicol said that you know the judge is definition of user interface module does does not include the physical part of the dispenser limitation that's a very inaccurate  n explaining his construction of user interface module no less than three times explicitly states that the user interface module and his income for his construction must be physically a component of the dispenser and physically a part of the dispenser i mean that limitation is all over the the claim construction order was repeated in the summary judgment opinion as well and for coca cola to argue that it's not part of the construction is simply not accurate with lemon number one number two i like sixty percent coke forty percent sprite that kind of thing so when when you walk up to the dispenser and you and you log in with your out those those those different mixes are presented to you then touches the touch screen to select the one they want poured right then and there and that selection is the is that is inputting the beverage id for the mix that you just picked another the statement that the  there was a compaq product and the the technology at issue there involved the controlling hard drive noise by allowing the user to select the speed so if you so the speed down it would be quieter the this in the court was looking at a user interface limitation in the past that issue there and and and that the seagate devices had no user interface whatsoever there was nothing that the user could interact with that was part of the seagate device what the patent owner in that case was trying to say was the user interface were these things that the opinion refers to as the eighty a s c s i screws the interfaces these aren't user interface whatsoever those can't be the user interface all right so then compaq the compaq devices had a user interface that's referred to as a graphical user interface but the claims in compaq claims that issue the user interface module had think there were there were some claims that required the specific limitations of outputting commands right and the compact devices had a user interface but the question was whether there  interact with by contrast here the user interacts with both the touchscreen on the freestyle machine and the user also interacts with the mobile app so both of those are user things that the user interacts with family both of those are things the user interacts with the claims against compaq were met except for the ones that didn't have this command issuing limitation those claims there was no infringement before the claims where there were no command and issuing limitations the user interface the graphical user interface and the compact devices were found to be infringing and so so both of those reasons convolve i believe and com also had a specific instruction that the communication between the between the user and the interface could be direct or indirect and here you know it should likewise not be can can be covered but not an internet communication pattern work can work either way and there's no there's no reason to draw that distinction why fight a wife i communication also goes from user to wife i router to destination