waived any further telling challenge to that i think the that the principal and best answer to that can be found in the simulation that led to the final judgment in this case which says and i quote the stipulation shall not in any way prejudiced any parties right realized that it could not pursue in good faith an infringement plain under that claim construction and so no longer pursue the infringement claim if this were one patent case i think we wouldn't be here with this argument because what santas would have done with a patent like that  does your argument on the stipulation does that rests on the fact that that we meaning the reference to the meaning claims were something more than four to four and said if we survive some adjustment yes i think when you see that when you look at the stipulation which was other side that we had stipulated to a dismissal of everything else that was the time to raise it instead of signing on to that language was there any discussion before the coordinating transcript of any sort or anything like that i can see on this issue here not that judgment of not infringement it isn't the point is with regard to the waiver issues that every point stand if intended to keep everything a lot and i don't want to spend too much time on that because i do want to get to the merits of the case in the limited time i've got  patent and the claims that made against us is that because the claim term that was being interpreted in the market stage was specifically called out to be with regard to claims one in ten of the four to patent that somehow or another we exceeded to it's not an error and i like to go on to try to predict subjectively why she would on this program have that but i did invest as i could understand a judge approach the rationale was that she was looking for something that was an actual time that was something like nine minutes and forty second me under that construction you're ignoring the word relative some relative has no meaning if you're looking for an exact time and that's iraq right that's exactly our get our argument is that relative time includes programming pages in a particular order when you know what harari the language issues there was a number of control gates a bit digit line a number of cells and when you saw those that language in that order it was quite proper that the court would singular not that that argument was not weighed because it was already resolved in within the mark one ruling with regard to claims one in ten of the four to patent it says the exact same language or similar language appears in the other claims that were sort of there's no way we could fact we were done at that same construction we thought we had so we thought we had an infringement read with regard to these other claims which have fewer elements and did not did not include the the overlapping limitations so so if we find that those claims were withdrawn then on what basis would we have to stand arguments to make to those claims suit to the other claims because we're talking about the same language and it was a law of the case ruling that we could not overcome in fact to that think is pretty well set forth in our brief the court's error there was in assuming that there are only two kinds of blots and three kinds of data and then a logical block at rest had to fit in somewhere figures twelve and fourteen of the eight hundred three patents show claim are the only groups of blocks into which something might fall the judge's error was in reading this comprising claim to be limited to these two groups of loss and nothing more with regard to the eight zero eight patent we believe that the district towards disclosure point do we that and the case when does it come back that's why i think it has to go i think it's going to have to go back on the procedural record that we have here but i think we're going to have a fairly fairly straightforward equivalence case of that point on multiple shifts with regard to the use device and being careful here with regard to the record but nonetheless the judge said that it can't be you can't have any part of it on the flash memory chip at the same i can't see how there's no support for this in the specification yet it was so much so disclosed that it was a dedicated to the public's i think i've tried to do the best i can in the limited amount of time to come back to them but to answer any question decision and this proceeds judgments that are not claimed destruction orders now where the claim instruction order is essential to the judgment the claim instruction gets reviewed but here there is a claim destruction order without a judgment of not infringed whatever reason status chose withdrawn and clean construction th we will assume that claim sixty one and sixty seven are limited in this way that's not would stand a start they argued that claim sixty one and sixty seven are limited to a single user data portion of a single overhead question they made that affirmative assertion without reservation now one reason that they may not have raised it in markman is that the argument on that would be even weaker for them once claim to one in ten either way they had some duty to point out to the district court judge that if they really believe they weren't conceding  module and counter it does not the district court didn't deal with the model and counter that issue wasn't presented to the district court so a counter would be an example of something that like a clock at the counter that goes from zero to twelve and starts over again that does show a relative time in need not be an exact time stamp but encounter can be used as a way of showing relative time can before and after on off state be relevant times if there was information that was based on if for example information record in the block said this was given after some other block that might be one example but the infringement theory that was presented the district court was simply location and what the district court said is a relative time that there's no information actually programmed about the time or recorded record is a word of words in the claim it's simply location says because i know that you're in slot number seven you must be newer than what's in slot number five but there's no piece of data in flight number seven that they're pointing to that indicates a relative time there's no piece of data and a lot of them five that indicate the relative time they're simply saying the fact that one is located in seven in the other is located in five frames one is newer than the other the those two things together also reinforce the idea that this has to be done on a page by page base and that there has to be specific relative time information programmed into the block not merely an inference which is really what the infringement theory was  own expert had shown that when you look at a flash memory device it was a picture of his expert for there's a chip on the front called the controller the chip on the back called the nap flash and he said that the read write circuits are in the man flash sid controllers on the front side so the evidence for the difficult was that these were clearly distinguishable elements whether on one chip or more than one chip there is something that people still on the are would say that's the controller that's your flash memory chip can i can i'm your little we don't unclean subject matter is an alternative to the particular limitation that explicitly say that because that's the way i'm reading particular and i wonder if you disagree with that i didn't agree so i think ari service which is the primary case which resolve this doctrine  you a few minutes left thank you very much jeff approached with regard to the question about the judgment the judgment here was written by the clerk at the direction of the district court in your summary judgment ruling it's not surprising that it incorporated language saying that that was a summary judgment what we believe are limited to physical block characteristics or whether they can be in some other block where the physical or logical addresses and i guess i'm not sure i understand your question i'm sorry ok as you s now i understand that the block that the characteristics that are set forward are physical information and what the column thirteen lines sixty to sixty five that says that route one does not include quote physical overhead information about the block operation you also look at column fourteen lines five to seven talking about this type of information about the physical this is not physical information then finally with regard to the argument about control or the argument that was just made was that the controller has to be something that you can drop box and really think you can drop box around well in fact if you look at the language of the claim with regard to control the language define