function absolutely is a means plus function claim that's up and down one twelve step exactly and therefore there has to be a corresponding structure specified in the in the ba shows that that machine is designed to read a printed ballen and show the show the votes in it and in a display and therefore it's beings who reach have read the ballot and examined in the to question is a human being is not a means under one twelve paragraph six but a human is an equivalent of the human action of reviewing the ballot and reading the ballot and comparing it default proof sat is that a human being cannot constitute a means with respect to the mental activity that it provides another words the full proof zero by the pac but was only under the one twelve paragraph six question as to whether or not it was a proper means plus function claim that was the whole issue of the full truth and indeed  it's not a question of simply the human means it's a question there of whether in intellectual activity can provide the means and there it said it cannot no question about that such essentially referred to other cases that involved attempts to patent intellectual activity mental processes that the word i've been looking for rule twenty six disclosures it only came up in that portion that's my only context your honor granted and the implication of your argument that it's being gradually moved from from libraries to the we i would like the answer i was suggesting if you're saying that the system only online and therefore not publicly available over no i'm not saying that at all not since no one what i'm saying is it was not publicly available because you couldn't find it you couldn't search online you can search or from any of the databases that are used by the patent office you could search it on dialogue if it didn't exist as as any information remember there is say this the point the point is that it existed yes it existed sure and it was a subtle it was not publicly accessible because you couldn't find the risks digest or the benson article  look you couldn't see it was an index to within this web site that had no no of rhyme or reason in the address you have you are else with the subject at hand it's like a book that's completely mis was this case for this case or started in two thousand and i mean a the the infringement and the start of events goes back six years to two thousand and four there is no proof that this was available at the a context of lister lister in between probably are familiar with and made it very clear that there has to be some ability to search by this is about the information that is so problem is with the way this case started off the the middle district as a rule or a local rule that requires the plaintive to apply for a default o thomas called in and asked for an extension for premier and also asked for an extension for a s n s never is why his appeal here because there's no other place to go we were thomas i asked him specifically do you represent the people they have a file that answer he says i do not and i'm not asking for one as a director i signed an affidavit that at effect i made that representation in my emotions that that's the that's the position i was then they didn't come forth with any notice of appearance and people i think if the records examiner was in it was in game of chicken with this other other company you know who's going to defend them to feel green isn't simply a recitation of everything that occurred in the trial court it is a selection of issues on which he lost that you initiatives which were held in the movie when winning in those issues would doing many good unless you were in on the listening in print that's correct but those were decided against them they were decided to be moot when they were completely before the court in the lower court they were in the they were before the court on two occasions one of the cajuns resulted in the magistrate who was challenged on this a default business striking my motions for before a court in this case i i have never met these judges and in one piece before this case we didn't weren't even permitted an oral argument before judge a judge fastened until the other side  reconsideration of a of a summary judgment that was granted against them and that was only for fifteen minutes and that was only to allow them to present evidence which they didn't present any evidence at all so the the the difficulty is this is the first and you know that that it was that we had to narrow down our motion for summary judgment in that regard and so we as we concentrated on that the outset and  ordinarily you would give deference to the lower court in matters because they are close at hand and see the of the testimony they're able to judge that the character of the witnesses and so on and so for the there's no one issue that is going to resolve this case all of these issues especially the discovery issue no discovery was allowed whatsoever that we had there was an attempt i think the fake us out of this thi two parties who don't want their stuff to become public and so they agree to a quick peek agree to a quick peek and they're trying to maintain each other's confidentiality they have a vested interest in their own  a confidentiality well that's fine anybody can agree to anything and carry that out can't be imposed in derogation of the rules of civil procedure where they just say oh no none then the other side  investigation to to comply with then even performed an investigation at the time of this order it was really a shambles to deal with this situation and the only result was that we could not take the risk of half a can dump a bunch of material on us that they claimed was confidential and expose us to the necessity of providing security for all that germ we have no idea what they over they don't have because they never responded to our real response to our request for production at all all they had was general objection the law is clear that that had waves all of their objections so they directed to a standard electronic voting machine where prints out a paper ballot the voter is allowed to compare the ballot against the screen it shows how they voted the language the claim is that they have to a decision by the voter as to whether a printed ballot acceptable or unacceptable and then in inputting of information as acceptability the ballot then submission of an acceptable print about protect the latent every single one of those steps is in hundred seven the wayback machine picked it up as being out there and available so that the wayback machine is the internet archive that goes out searching the internet and find all the things that are publicly available and organize them by date and time to  i don't know that he indexed everything that was in the site i know that if you go on the way back machine and pull it up you can see the site to pull up materials inside the site and i believe hundred ninety five leslie marshall took it and put it out to the public at no charge so it didn't cost anything for the public to access it to contribute to the site and to be an active participant in the site peter newman actually ran the site and he would make and over one hundred electronic voting machine articles have been written and published on the site from the beginning aside it's one nine hundred ninety nine and so you have here is we have a group of people interested in electronic voting in or out of the risks of using computers these kind of functions in other words the information to the people who are in the know was two and a half days at one time france and a half a day another conference on a poster board that was sufficient longevity in terms of presentation sufficient publication to the to the to the group of interest to be found a publication here it wasn't just presented to the group it was a discussion of the group and so you had this this article imbedded in the public and i submit that we should not withdraw that from the public because it was not only accessible of the traditional mouse was  is you walk up to the machine this is a declaration of steeple you walk up to the machine you vote a look chronically and when you're done voting you had some voting it prints a ballot for you to correspond to how you voted electronically it prints out the machine will read the ballot and played back through earphones they can hear what how they vote but with the machine will not do is compare that scan of the ballot to a previously stored electronic record of how the person voted and that's it's identical play forty nine except it's missing element forty nine which is the element that with wires the inputting of information as the acceptability of a printed ballot by the voter so eighty five doesn't require that step it ball a little bit on the default i am not aware of any facts evidence or circumstance of any improper behavior by anybody in this case with respect that none of them raise my right ha different party has nothing to do with this lawsuit no religion and so we represented them in that case they were sued in this case as they were sued in this case they had just gotten done selling off for me or the premier subsidiary to e s n s and the in house attorneys were talking to each other about how we're going to handle this lawsuit jeff of them checks but his declaration he said he thought that when they signed up the local council at the gentleman pensacola that they were going to get the extension for him is what he found out that didn't happen through his own inadvertence and immediately when we figure that out they called me up and said you represent a sec i did not represent them at that time my firm who was not the one fall and that sort of different situation and so it's really he said really it's ok and so and so then at that point we were we we got our answer on fire right away and we were in the process of moving to say we'd like to file was two days at a time in the clerks for judge paul and i think i think she decided it was moot because we found the answer and then judge fossett said wait a minute you can't go that fast the judge fossa treated as if we happened is is originalists cover a quest reached over million documents and as we understood it we had to get a protective order put am sorry a privilege allowed put together for all the documents in the millions that were frivolous and so we started with that privilege log and it was about ten or fifteen pages long and there was no way we're going to finish and we said you know what you really want we'll get you what we can get you can you narrow it down and he said we want to do is categorize each of the million documents in the categories so you could figure out which categories you want to use to narrow the request and so we're left in a situation where you want to back off a million documents and so we found in the rules were twenty six where you can do quick pick procedure which allows him unfettered access and judge bolton i believe ordered us within eight days of our order  else the request was so luminous there was no way to say you know if we do this we're not going to have to repeat it again for this or if we do this we're going to be moving the bone forward so since to this we can put a figure out a way to put a thing out there for  this until they said they have millions of documents and they wouldn't categorize them or even tell me what they were in response to our request to produce no response whatsoever except just objections they wouldn't perform in the investigation in terms of what do you have in what form does of the exist so i can you know decide i can save you some time if that is the case they wouldn't do it  discretion in the sense of violation of due process now i don't know how the federal system works in that detail but i think that right there see you know with sort of like we're grounds for remember if you want to you wan you have to actually be able to get it find it get into it and then and then that is what had been indexed by mr marshall and how it had been indexed we he cannot tell you if say it again with respect to representation by mr they represented he didn't answer the question when you asked him that he represented premier as i understand in the prior litigation and premier at that time