that this positive issue was whether it was a and under any turn of events it could be a cooperative relationship between the player and the computer or whether it had to always be a competitive relationship i misunderstand the case which is very likely well your honor i think that's a partial understanding the board didn't so much put it in those terms as that's putting him terms of including at least that minister with play the game show network some other issue that we should be focusing on well in the words actual construction doesn't talk about correct property versus competitive they use that phrase where in the playing is at least administered and so we are saying least that's part of the issue here that that that couple people business but the core issue is whether whopper actually anticipates that limitation that that finding of anticipation was based on a walk or having a computer ask the questions to the human player so he really want to get down to it i would say that's really the issue is whether this playing a game of skill between the single player in the computer in these two rooms those that specifically include just the computer asking questions to the human player if i really want to get them to what it is that's what it is because if it's expert their expert reviewer that playing against is like between and we argued that up between includes a guess but if there were basically killer disregard of experts saying that they thought those terms were changeable that's that's what happened there you i think but if we c whines that that sort of jumped out at me i know you had your debate about whether solitaire could be only a solitaire version with two people even though that's not what it says but how you played trivia against a computer  the description for the invention when you go to the next section and immoral really have the fact that we have only one figure in the pan figure one that sets forth the the process for our games including trivia it starts off with the player plays game of skill at least example when it says it includes the trivia games it includes car games it even includes solitaire all of those games involve the player playing vs or against the host computer so that's that's pretty unequivocal here in terms of the seventeen where we have the paragraph where it talks about the qualifying round is played between a single player through a computer terminal and of course computer the host computer has the ability to act as a game sponsored by keeping are separate they are separate bucket from play you look at claim one it's got to pulling steps to it and it's also got evaluating to value in three evaluating steps and then distributing award stats all those other steps that are different and then we have one other one in here in the list of acts of sponsorship operating the game i would say that's exactly what you would say to computers when it only has the questions to many human quick so what you're saying is that  us but then we did file reissued that's what's currently pending this parent you know if it does go into oh it was filed in one thousand nine hundred so doesn't have that many years left so we do think it's important that you know the original claims be construed appropriately so we don't lose any the written description that go the other what and when we get all that we're still left with total ambiguity as to what is the right answer and is application and in the patent process as to exactly what he's talking about judge on maui highlights the exact problem did you name between or did you mean appropriate also the post here has the ability to act as another fire if the game requires more than a single player so if that's the case how do you how do you continue to assert that that all of these games have to have more than one life well we break the immediate before line talks about the coughing right round fleet between a single player to a terminal and a host computer so it sets up a single player who talks about the sponsoring activity separately in that third single player yes and you've got a single player are you playing against the computer well with single player american text your honor i would submit that with actual single player as a point by themselves versus do they have a partner that's what our expert showed would be the engine running and things like actual underwear that you're playing between the player in the human and the computer at that point you've got to have the computer engaging in play clearly in games like that there's no doubt about it and that's really the same thing that's been described throughout this figure one applies to all those games whether it's bridge in general me or these other games and i talked about all of those games against the computer and every one of those games can be played against a computer solitaire absolutely and also you know that's a multiplayer game both sides and a board of knowledge than any i've played solitaire offline life sure but that's not enough to undermine the meaning of claim one here in the north american vaccine case is a good example of that where the independent the defendant claimed to take others not wag the independent lame duck into particularly relevant here they said moreover that the pending claim there was evidence that said well that beat that claim could include b but it could also include  t but but you have several kinds of solitaire you can reconcile that with north american vaccines as long as i can reconcile that there are some variants of solitaire that are consistent with playing against and claim one i don't throughout his declaration was that the the claims require cooperate or competitively they allow for both and that he says he was his testimony is that even the gets can mean cooperative if you cherry picked out of the specification this is at the beginning of the description of the invention and this is the only place where it describes the rural of the player and the computer so it's not some place that we found a mine on column sixty four buried somewhere or something a difficult issue to try to decide if it's ambiguous i'm saying here if it's a big us we get the benefit we get the better because it's broadest reasonable and the judge the board here said look it it's got at least include and the computer and it says very clearly we're talking about the qualifying round and it says very clearly the clarify ground is played but between the word at the pad and b chose the patent he does use the word against the does use the word vs in the spec but the patent be claimed between so here's the word the qualifying round is played between a single player through a computer terminal and a host computer that it's the describes further how the action takes place the host computer has the ability to act as a game sponsor to be square operate in the game monitoring the player's progress so that's clearly not being a competitive had to have player hype but that that i mean that house will still have to occur regardless of whether you're playing against the computer or or simply using a computer right i mean even in the against the nara now you need to have that that somebody monitoring how you're doing and keeping score true but i hope i wasn't by finish with a passage because the next sentence says are so the host computer has the ability to act as another player if if the game requires more the single player at the can't you go back and say that that phrase to a single player relates back to the reference to a single player earlier in that same paragraph the single player is the person that's interacting with the computer and they and that reference the second reference to single player it means if you need more than the one human being that you're reading words into what this says it's as if the game requires more than a single player at it and if you further read through the specification and the claims we have such we have examples of can look at the other claims as well those provide guidance those provide input into that kind of think a section process and if you have better be printed claims which we have here which are our traditionally single player games and we're not just talking about trivia the under philips is that both co op because we're looking at the word between between us eg knowledge by the parties to mean jointly engaging jointly gaging they provided that definition the board adopted it they also provided the definition of a guess which means competitive now if they would claim competitive we'd lose if they claimed against us under philips we lose but even under philips you're still looking at the construction in light of the ordinary meeting specification intrinsic record and all of the spec to suggest that it could be both and i think the best part we're looking at is common to where it says it can be either it can be a host or it can be a it can also be a player if the game requires more than one player the urban area understanding of that is if you have a game that requires one and one player save you know if you have a solitaire is one player word searches one player cross a good player if you have to give it requires more than one player then the computer can issue here can it be competitive or does it require to be combative or had they had and i think gains your town your or your performance level if you are playing solitaire and all the computer doing is keeping track of the fact that you something because solitaire is a game of skill and you can improve right so if you depending on how good you are and how fast you aren't getting to completing that that getting all the parts locked up you can get a score so you can get a beginner player maybe will take more time and maybe not never be able to eliminate all the cards right so that the computer there is going is just a value weighting how good you are as an individual source as a single player a playing solitaire and that ranks you in this in this try to mint and if you're really good you'll finish all that quickly and you get a good score and as you improve i think we've all played solitaire you learn how to play you get better and you can you can do it more quickly you can see the combination more quickly and you can play quick more quickly so that kind of game it's very simple that's the that's how you would score it was like any crossword or any kind of word search there skill games and the more you play it the more you learn the better the faster you are that the and the computer cited the original copy he doesn't they don't say oh in light of the current construction they just say this new claim which requires had a competition is different than the current plan and i think this is telling because what happened and i think that this is in the record is that under the rules you have to seek authorization seek a motion go met they sought a motion to amend their in that conference call the judge said hey are you going to put head to head in the claim is that what you're going to do in your memory and they said ye we can attack that they said let's do it x party and therefore we have a fact of case this claim goes down we're going to have another claim that we can sort that can survive so i think here it's quite telling that they knew how to claim it with head to head they and they they just chose not to and they shouldn't get the benefit of that decision in this ca starting point clearly put sponsorship in a different bucket from please and sponsorship is evaluating its distributing awards and its operating the game which would be asking questions and trivia so where in the ip are context will follow that rule could clarify here start with the claims that really end with claims and so that playing a game of skill in a qualifying room between a single player and a host computer is certainly competitive if you have a game of football in a playoff between washington and that but you know they say that that's not a good example there are examples in count three including sporting events and things like that certainly revealing that they would lose and they're philips interpretation oh absolutely not that's that's the the easier bar but i think we always see proxy kind of street that they don't really have a dramatically they're not saying just ignore phillips and go up and come up with your own things they still are adopting humans a claim construction of those decisions  unreasonable but it certainly can be broader than what we think of as a philips interpretation can't it i think in the abstract you're out of there that's right it's going to case by case thing akin to nor can i see it because i think a lot of they in light of the total written description score my score can be higher than your score and though you can be in a competitive situation they really have trouble decoupling any of these games from a competitive context here when you have to read them and you have cla