in essence of this invention this invention describes throughout specification repeated as if one of its fundamental tenets the idea of taking away processing power for specific functions taking that away from the general purpose processor which as several over question if they have to perform and just puting that functionality that software processor functionality to other places in the system so that you have specialized models if you will specialize models that are not burdened by the overhead of running an entire operating system which would be present in a general purpose processor such as the president said such as that present system and distributed them so that the parts of the processor which perform those functions are not worth all the overhead associated with a normal operating system and that does not mean it has to be i resent that peter indeed the specification is no it does mean though that special and the primary point from this cluster creation is that you have one processor of its associated software that is specialized in one area maybe doing other things as well another process or said both part of recognized and stated in the groups that even the preferred part of it is not one hundred percent which is true let me return said specified reprieve all data directly to said network control module but the direct connection is also set forth in claim statement it seemed to me that claim eight didn't really looks to me like it's pretty much the same and i so that my question is is it is it pretty much the same you're argument in your briefs does it really emphasize that claim at all it does which seems to me themselves as a starting the starting point suggests a definition that is related to the function described in the client itself we do not suggest that it is entirely spot we do suggest however it also in the summary that everything vention describes that separation from the host as being important the words optimize dedicated specialized are used throughout the space of the primary concern by the district court and  which it seems to me that there may be any number of ways to implement the the invention to achieve the objectives that are set forth that are not necessarily limited to the particular example at workmen but they moved for summary judgment of infringement and in that motion for summary judgment of infringement they never do so any evidence that glorious file server actually complied with the claim construction it's asking the court to adopt today in other clearly don't you come away with a clear sense that this invention is directed to exactly the subject matter that mr powers was arguing that these are separate modules that are of the independent if you will of a general overall operating system that's the whole point is to provide the server that's not burdened with the complexity of performing multiple overlapping tasks is it so so i guess the direct question is why isn't mr powers correct in arguing that these claims are properly covered the invention disclosed that is directed to the specific models and not the overall operating system to point to keep in mind first there are the  to ice and brown the communication have an orange and the file system control module is not the file controller which is somewhat confusing but it necessarily must be three at least these three also requires that the file system control lines will satisfy by a system request and return specified retrieval data to the network control module for that to happen in the environment it required to  the system memory which serves as a as a parking lot if you will for data while the processors in their processing class the important point is these these this aggregate of structure components that is the planes file system control module is never associated with this language that says any one of these components that namely the file controller the storage processor must be optimized and indeed the storage processor device it satisfying the host of requests for administrative tasks so the idea of saying well i'm going to i'm going to look at a description of one of the processors and be satisfied essentially only in fs requests and those that that's the essence of what network appliance would have reported read into these claims were such one was missing i would like to turn with the remaining time two or cross appeal on non infringement of the nine we packed because very similar claim construction issues come up there as you know we are cross appealed the finding of infringement of these identical claims on the basis of the cross appeal is what we believe was the court's erroneous claim construction of the term network control module in the functions it is to perform this plane as we've been talking about is two modules the first is the network control model and we believe and we've always said this is that the essence of these planes and the purported novelty of these claims is not the file system control retrieval request one must process it at the application layer the top layer of the traditional o s i stack network communication the court tell that that was not required the court said that any processing and layer of the traditional requests talking about the application layer we're just talking about the lower layers it's talking about packed dust when you see descriptions for example on the call to follow there's a description of the processing different claims throws the same concept in different ways and issues not looking at the word say the absence of that word of this kind must mean it was not intended but you must look at the specification to determine what  network networks and provide all protocol processing between the network layer data format and internal files for format so they're in other words all political processes therefore if the court has to adopt the notion that these statements