video and many others require that an expert performing a little like element comparison explaining what each element entails and how each one is performed in the prior at pages twenty seven twenty five and twenty six of you and six questions and does a combination of mosaic plus h t m l plus render all the planes obvious answer i believe so what a leading question recognized at page thirteen twenty nine or do you get the only witness in this case to describe the operation of the to be all browser was the programmer sylvie and he did that page twenty four sixty six sixty seven of your appendix it's clear from reading those two pages about how it operates the browser didn't utilize any information about the type of object da with that is that seems to be a claim construction issue which was not before the court and not posit so you're asking us to accept a definition of what type of nation is like that seems like a claim construction issue with you never that to parent with an executable application that will render that type of data it video player for video data an audio player for audio data and so to just say it could mean anything would be i mean it's clearly  in this in this case as the browser taking the type information and looking for an executable application looking for it based on the type of data and application that was our three dimensional imbedded interactive object but the defendants now recognize that that will work because the viola tag doesn't say anything about the location of the jet fighter and there is no type information associated with the airplane data so defendants bring to this court the theory that plot dots was the interactive object but the point to the slide one sixty one you court will find this at twenty two eighty eight if your appendix it was computer code and it was marked code from j b x one eighty four philips had pointed to the words of usual and said that this is the in that text format he brought into the word to button and said this is type information he gave no schumer explanation of what they did or how they might practice the claim of ones we discovered after the trial and the defendants now admit that the code shown to the jury in the next slide was written by phillips in two thousand and ten when he was working with the lawyers for the defendants to invalidate these two patents so phillips testimony gave the jury the false impression of corroboration when there wasn't any and of which was disqualified itself under the barbwire format it may have been but he never testified about the prior marker that would be the only code that would be relevant to invalidate the patents so and we so turning finally to the distributed application requirement of four of the claims all of the defendants edge on the distributed application missed the point every question and answer was to the effect that  machine could talk to another machine over a network the defendant and met at page thirty seven of their brief that that the evidence but that's not what distributed application emerge it's been construed when we say x human of all applications are you leaving out the category of executing an application on a computer one displaying the to try to understand what the word performed means in this context when it perhaps it's a term of art but to me it doesn't seem clear at least obvious that displaying the product of the computing that is done on machine one displaying that on machine two is not distributing the performance of the application well and if it's not it was one numerous different grounds including but not limited to feel before you get into details one thing that's important to remember is that this is not justice patient case during the opening argument i heard almost nothing obvious and were for obvious year before the patent application people in the field figured out how to do this they published an entire about community how to do it and then after discussions about doing it because and actually did it because they were trying to get the whole community to create under a uniform standard technology in general and not enough of where the limitations of the claims show up in the prior art so maybe you could address first the type limitation question the machine the coolest at a considerable portion  some degree of generic and this is an argument that's made by illness that plot the is not a generic is it is it your argument that the dot the is the generic part i wasn't clear whether that's what we know that the name of an object to serve associated with the object and although a name might not inherently convey a type of patient we have the name of a computer file tends to convey a lot of information about you and just here is a right there discussing the road prior are explaining it now also in terms of the  to forty two also the there's no such notice in the unofficial at the claim most of the claims talk about at least one client computer and at least one server not two and when you go to the specifications look evidence from the actual dropped and changed what they said was the interactive object so what what what still be said and we call this there now climbing and they're continuing to argue that plot about me is the that doesn't work that doesn't anticipate now going to the media view articles just briefly there is nothing on those media view articles which goes in to the architecture of the way when the system works there they're this or to read on to these patterns let me finally say with regard to counsel's arguments that all of this was so obvious to the industry and everybody knew it  into the combination too and then interactive objects that page ninety five sixteen none of this was so obvious to any of the child in this case involves the failure of the levels of evidence for the fact finder to base a decision on and that wasn't done