morning your honour's of the police court this happened had a very concrete problem that it was addressing at the time of the invention related to the emergence of applications which i acted as a server in what would be normally the client's computer the user's computer that normally acts as a and in that context the computer and its firewall needed to be set up to accept incoming communications from anywhere but let me  board made in this case was a cleaned construction that was inconsistent with the plain meaning of the term was inconsistent with the file history in particular some disclaimers of the the configuration of the firewall that require that the server port information particularly be automatically detected and stored and the as the briefing lays out the critical piece here is does the invention described as a claim describe invention in which not only does the storage of the port information occur automatically but also the determination of what information to distill store is that a step of extracting the import information right in the in the claim language it's it just as extracting the server port information right it doesn't say it doesn't say automatically extracting the server port information automatically the term only appears in the story that right automatically that word pierce in connection with the last happened story but if history makes it clear that the automation part of it is the entire registry of that server or the information to tell the fire wall these are primitive communications and throughout the file history and even in this case before the board the mcafee agreed that the portion of the invention that relates to identifying programs that would be stored in an internal program storage thus being trusted programs could be automated it could involve some huge user intervention yes so so that first step of whether programs are trusted or not allows for user intervention and doesn't require it but it allows for what the pattern is absolutely clear about what the file history is absolutely clear about i am not so sure the file history is absolutely clear about much and i'm not even sure what you want us to glean from the file that what the file history explains is that  an there's a there can be a period of time where the user is installing the application in in a green that there's this application should be to be a permitted application at some point very short shortly after that you know order for the application to actually become active in start listening for communications at that point then that sort of reporting information needs to be included in the final otherwise the communicational just fail and that was the whole point of the patent is to allow those communications to make it through the fire wall so that the application can respond to them appropriately so so it's not some instantaneous nature but it certainly has construction of adding a program right so that it in your view is that it excludes floppy known programs and why is that so so the first there's the issue of the problem of what a program is because the the pattern is clear that different versions of the same program are beat to be treated as different applications so you might be updating a program and in that sense it may not be a new program but it's certainly going to be a new set of requirements or info to configure the firewall to make sure that particular applications inbound communications are accounted for and right so it's a new the program list is updated but that if you get a new port number because of the updating of the software that would be adding a program right write a program would be defined in this patent as the the entire set of functions of that program where included in that is how it communicates to the outside which server port city uses and which protocol since all for so so each time a program is changed in even a slight way it could be a new program they the patents requirements about adding programs to the list of permitted pro programs is to make sure that the fire wall is configured properly to allow those communications through that but i don't understand how that the very disclosure in the spec that we just discussed doesn't cut against the proposed construction that you have given for adding a program the proposed construction simply being that a new program is being added to the list of permitted programs right and you are by extract the information  and was that they didn't they don't feel at all with with automatic rules creation of the nature that this patent deals with and and so a new what they do is they already have their set of rules and in yacht of it's called an application specific role it might be an essential central server it might be on the client so it might go to the central server and happy it over to the klein but there's already a role there and and that cannot serve the purpose of this witch which covers the issue of a entirely new server application being loaded on the computer and and being programmed programming the f can't be consistent with adding something to the program lest i think it's the the huge throughout the specification of the word extract it's talking about the port monitoring unit extract the in the information from my doing network by doing hooking so that you understand what's going in and out what when the server is loaded and installed the server port information information about the program and and all of that is a process that is  t is contrary different than just copying from one location to another and in particular the claim language says  so programmed to the list i extracted information about the program the list being the list of programs permitted by the firewall so in the context of yacht have you have a bunch of programs that are permitted by the fire wall that already reside either locally on the client computer or in the centralized computer and they're just being copied you don't know why  noting several omf several words that were used to describe the claims that are not in the claims and self during the argument just now so automatic rules creation entirely new server application and automatically detect storing automatically storing is in the claimed automatic detecting is not so starting with the with the adding a program limitation i think it would be helpful to talk about what is the permitted program list that so the board's opinion if you look at figure three if you are off the permitted program which is not the policy itself that is precessing and maybe remote server and permitted program list if you look at that on policy and then extract that information from the policy and saves it on a local cache and that extract information about the program including the program name saved in the local cache is a permitted program list and so it's not once again it's not the policy itself and there's no language in the claims that precludes the requires a new program or a program that's never been trusted before it seems that  your friend on the other side is really arguing that it can't construe these terms while understanding their connection to the extraction imitation is that fair i believe that is what the argument is and i will say that when i when i read the read brief and so in our in our brief we we address extraction term and when i read the read brief i felt like we were talking past each other a little bit because we didn't we extraction had to be automatic or not there also was i felt like there is an argument that the extraction step is related to the program it isn't a program step and the board address that question is well the board the board made clear that once again that the two steps are separate and the adding to the permitted program list is completely separate from the lists of storing the permit appointments and if you look at for example the application rule in force cover of the read brief is extracting information about the server ports and so it's automatically storing the information that was extracted about the server port and so that's not the information that's not the permitted program since that to the network traffic and force or to add to the primitive port program list if it's authorized and so even in the prior art the extract i our point is that the extracting term doesn't have to be automatic the priority actually does it automatically anyway s and it really has a really support limitation rule there is a rule created by the claim in effect when you have to permit a program to start the primitive portland's at the end of the claim that's what's regulating network traffic and so there is in effect the rule being created by the end of the claim but there's not some group creation process that requires that when you add the program it's the first time you've ever created argument is that there's a prosecution disclaimer which is a high bar and so that must be clear and unmistakable there was a lot of talk in the file history about registration and it was in my view  what was clear is at the end when you look at and we outlined this in our brief that the changes that were made if you look at our brief the change in reef the blue brief at thirty seven to thirty eight the changes at site all related to the registration that went to automatic story so the only thing that was actually clear to us that was a clear and unmistakable disclaimer was that when the applicant referred to registration in the file history and it so with respect to the last point and further explained that the idea that automatic only modifies story as opposed to story doesn't make any sense once killing the art knows the way computers store information is entirely without user involvement if you think about the only participating but in every other situation involving computer operation information is being stored taken out of storage constantly and the idea that this patent the automatic provision only applies to the story and not to the extract makes no sense because the very purpose of the invention was in expert people would not know what the sort of record information is so if we need to be extracted and stored without user intervention the point of the file part of the file history that i was automatically be registered in an internal permitted port storage based on the advantage to get the network communications program using for for example a program registered in an applicant's internal permitted program storage and requiring a new server port for operation for example after the program under goes a software update can automatically register the port without the intervention of ministry and or those statements the applicant made before you added the amendment for automatically storing the server server port information is that right right these you are arguing for a certain kind of conception of how the claims work even though the claim didn't actually say it examiner nevertheless continued to press it's rejection and then finally in response to the continuance of that rejection you added the limitation of actions and the the one that that i think is important here is the change from the word register to store throughout the change you mean added because there wasn't anything in the claim previously that referenced automatic anything right no there was there was claim language about