system into using its own software providers to effectuate transfer of real fast in that way that is how the claimed invention here solve the problem that plagued the prior art that use interface and a host device a computer system and if you had some software that was specifically matched to communicate between the interface and the particular who's computer at issue for example that could lead to problems by mouth functioning or to be so specifically matched that it couldn't be used with other types of devices or converse lee if you had a a broader type of specialized software something that would apply or be able to be used with other devices well that would have the problem then that it wouldn't be so off to go in matched in a way that the data transfer would be but to put the core point to take away from that is this problem with needing specialized driver software and the solution the core point to take away from the patent is the solution that's claimed in the claim the solution is having the interface device that are limiting the need of the specialized software altogether out by having the interface device pretend or simulate itself to the host to puter system not like being on an interface device and attached to me is a particular type of  did but by saying why to the host computer if you will that no no i mean customary device through which you the host computer system already have the driver software that's power that's not the invention here is  claimed that the problem is resolved and the fact that it can be used in different ways doesn't impose the variety of physically separate and distinct are physically readily passable in the pacha whole qualities that the district court rudely imposed on various of the queen terms on an issue what is it is there a common understanding between the parties what the district court and the constructions stand alone construction construction supposedly are supposed to actually make things clearer this one seems to me not to move in that direction so i'm curious whether there is a a everybody understands that this is what was turned it directly on the interface device construction and there the district court i think it's fair to say makes clear that it's imposing not just stand alone but also that the separate and distinct which is the way of saying that it little bit different from some of the other uses of the present eventually so so specifically on on the column a passage like why is that not a problem sure you are honored and pursuant to this court's case  especially absolute software it's not a problem for four reasons first of her absolute software presidential there's not a uniform consistent description of the invention that requires physically separate and  to the specification and look to see whether there is to quote absolute software any suggestion to the contrary in the intrinsic evidence and here and even in this paragraph it alone it's referring there's plenty of indication you're separating particular components of the interface device and one another is the trace communication that actually has three of the four pieces of the interface device gives it a new name right which doesn't it hasn't very paragraph says that the particular hardware symbolized here is not important that can be modified to have a modification at suncorp what's important is that the interface device operate there the e p patents had mopey tasking but the problem team down to the same problem with the other prior art references it still needs specialized optical matching driver software you know there are there there is a theme that the district and then the claim have this kind of interesting language about regardless of the d t r d d that's attached to the interface device so i guess there's some pieces there that the judge had to work with to pull out a team that we're talking about maybe something that's a plug in play plug and play is the way it can be used but under this court's precedents for nar meaning of the claim language doesn't impose these requirements it can cover plug and play or a different type it doesn't have to be permanently attached in detail what is the language meaning that when it says regardless of the type without any consideration of what's actually a path to the interface device or whatever the interface device if it was to be honest with the host device it always palace that host device that host computer system in the context where of course i don't think there's any dispute that they can be permanently attached to one another and they can be permanently attached to one another within the sea physical housing the same physical structure where we own conference already begins below this is for the three nine nine pat everything the raptor in all caps is being described as a detailed description of the preferred embodiment not the invention but anyway in that section your honor not just paraphrase that it's talking about the components for the interface device such as the first connecting attached permanently and they're attached permanently within the same structure so it's using the past in a way that is completely consistent with this court case all and i'll note as well that the prior art in the discussion of the prior installed inside a host computer so that sort of point to the notion that but this idea of separateness and whatnot that's not what's really important here it's emphasizing the theme if you will your honor throughout the specification actually teache and this theme is the inventions ability to limit the need for specialized software that's what the specification focuses on and that's further the reason why the district court's construction on this term and the other term nuclear deal special there's no  projecting simulating itself as a customary device for which the host already has drivers so that another a virtual file can be a physical file that the host divides believe into thinking that this is the customary device the signal the hardware device that speeds subjected to the to the host of mine also has this file system not a real file system a virtual file system that's w but this the host device may have additional follow up question there are additional queries here about what's been patched here and this is just speaking to the same core idea that it's projecting itself appearing as a resides in the d d r d than the d d r at the transmit that the real file to the interface to violence and then the interface device ultimately transmits it to the host device and the host device is under the impression that this real file is coming from one of the the customary input output devices that it works with is that what's going on almost almost but i was with them all the way into the end you honor i think the last point is that the host device and using the software drivers is duped into using those software drivers because it has the it is seen as a customary device that has these virtual files and therefore by virtue of that it's ok that's approving this process of using unix drivers and that then engage in this process by doing that that's what results in having the real data and that of the plain language of sites i'm sorry just one more question on this if if it was in fact just the customary input output device that was hooked up to the host device let's forget about her invention or s device we'd still be talking about real files that the host computer to be asking about this little files yes but would we be calling them for them as virtual  transfer since we've just been talking about customary devices hooked up to it seems like a opportune time to recall that the claim phrase uses a different wor in that's right and you rely very heavily on a specification passage that refers to printer devices which is a specification and suggests  that this input output device doesn't have to be inside the same fox as the as the processor as a computer processing what if stated has there implied that give you the meaning you want yes and if i could answer the question your honor by reference what this court has gone for a phrase just like this even more stringent you can say recognize of the word was there it still held that because the specification disclosed one one example of a peripheral that was outside if you will external attached to the host computer system then the construction that excluded the peripheral that disclosed example was a really you know we don't have one we have multiple it's not just printer devices that your honor pointed out but opinion and in or summary judgment opinion that these are the types of devices the types of peripheral that far disclosed to specification as being customary for which the host device will have drivers but nonetheless physicist records say putting excluding several disclosed examples the district court violated this court case law by elevating at dictionary definition of the word and over the teachings of the specification this court is made clear that that second point to be that in order for pap to have preserved its construction it had to argue the point twice to the district court once after the district court had rejected it i don't think that's exactly right i think when pap's submitted its motion for reconsideration to the court on this term it said you have now made an error not an error that we have previously discussed to focus on that er said right i messed up i need to fiddle a little bit with the transmission received business but you're saying that in order to preserve the construction that it actually submitted in the primary round of construction claim construction that construction they didn't say we'd like to reserve the ability to go back later to ask for our old construction we're ok with the construction there is now we just want to change this one thing and then left standing the language when connected without making any arguments about it or noting it in any way and so judge collier then it's off to the construction as they modified it and it was only upon having summary judgment granted against them regarding the construction and after that you don't have to get to the other terms when the conversation started today talking about the construction of interface device there was a lot of discussion about whether there is a uniform fee or consistent description in the specification or in this patent about whether the interface device needs to be sent to learn from the other two main divides and there is absolutely uniform thing and it starts with the claims the claim perfectly as a linguistic matter read on circuitry that can be permanently affixed to any of a number of different data devices that sign language that in every claim regardless of the type of data transmission receive device attached to that interface device that language means that there have to be the ability to attach different things if there's not the ability to attach different kinds to be parodied then there's no point to the language i think the way that pa that's one and that is the notion that the host of ice will use drivers that are customary in its device drivers that it already has but there's also the other side of the invention which they leave out and that's the part that is brought in with this regard language regardless is about how what's attached on the other side of the interface device can be any of a number of things that stand in this claim language but it's also supported throughout the specification there's many many different places in the  where it confirms that part of the that the way this language should be read is to find that the interface device is meant to be able to attach to many different types of devices throughout the specification and they use the term the present invention to describe this device as being able to attach to multiple different kinds of d t r d's they do it in several different places of the patent including starting from the very beginning from the very first words in the patent to the very last words just before the claims and those words are describing the interface device according to the present invention it provides a universal solution which can cover the entire spectrum of possible data transmitter receiver devices this is the last word and similarly in common seven lines forty five to forty nine the patent provides that technicians can use the interface device according to the president mention as an interface between a host in almost any data transmitter receiver to come and tell me again why those two things in particular don't have the same perfectly the understanding that i've tried to articulate with respect to the regard databases are created can can use the same thing and then soldered it because under the language of the planes and language in the spec it's always said that this interface device has to be able to attach to multiple things the one and interface devices to testable to multiple different things one of the time permanently under the claims it does require that there have to be multiple things that you can attach and there's a lot of different language in the spec to look at another thing to look at is the part that you were pointing to previously in column five that talks about the various devices being attached in that description where mr patel you pointed out that it uses the terms attached to also talk about the interface device being attached to the host device and to the details but in both of those examples it says it can be attached it doesn't say it is attached it doesn't say it's always attached it says it can be attached in the other examples where it's talking about things internal to the interface device when it's talking about the digital signal processor or the memory maybe it's just the words attached is attached similarly similar statements were made during the prosecution history when which also confirms this is well where when the apple kant was describing his invention in a attempt to distinguish prior art he noted while he was describing the invention that it is clear that the d t r d to be connected to the second device connecting device the subject interface provides analog data he recognizes the device was meant to be something that to be connected to the data transfers to device is not something that's captured permanently by them some questions about the devices customary claim term is the term in which the camera manufacturers construction of the construction adopted by the court uses it's one of the several question about the printer devices and the other maybe you start with this very specific thing we were discussing earlier is it understood or agreed or found by the district court that the tape drives or cd rom drives would have been extra to the host device chassis at the time no i there's nothing in the record that i can recall that were that were there would have been that agreement and indeed at that time in drivers are found in the hoax device because that is part of the invention that the invention has to use drivers that are found in the host device in giving the description that includes the printer driver it's describing drivers that are typically found in h devices however when he goes on to talk about the types of devices that the interface device can simulate to the host of life now it refers to first the hard disk drive or as a preferred embodiment and then that other storage devices can be used so the devices that are described in the patent as the ones that can be simulated to the heart heart this excuse me to the host of eyes are storage devices hardison other kinds of storage devices no where in the past is there any disclosure of being able to simulate a printer to the host device at the type of device that device is pretending to be there's no and then that same problem with that same phrase was also used  second connecting device which was the basis for the judgment entered specifically as to h p has q ok why does the second connecting device issue not stand or fall with the inter of face device question about stand alone versus not because the language is different the claim the first separately to an interface device and then to the second connecting device that interfaces with the interface device so we need to look at the construction of the second connecting device as a separate element in the claims from the interface device and we would submit that with regard to second connecting device be purchasable different just to clarify are you suggesting that it's have two different outcomes on interface device and second connect and buy or just a matter of logic they have to stand or fall together i don't believe they have to stand or fall together because a court is conducting an analysis  what two different claim terms in the claim mean and what the scope is of the interface device to which the second connecting devices attached to reach the d t r he has attached in one instance or is looking at what the second connecting device itself is and how it's attached to the d t r d s so these we're looking at three separate structures in the claims and certainly three separate structures in the environment with respect to the second connecting device to blow agreed that this was a circuit device used to couples the d t r deed to the interface device and they also argued in their claim construction belief below and this is in the record at age fourteen seventy eight that it shouldn't be limited to a mere connector that should include additional circuitry and so what we had at the district court was pabst agreeing that the second connecting device was a hardware device used for the coupling purpose and that it contained at connector as well as the other elements that are resided in some of the claims we submit the pap's arguments now that the second connecting device doesn't do anything other than interface the interfacing device  change in its claim construction position from what it argued to the district court and not something that it should be permitted to argue here with respect to the construction of second connecting device with respect to detach ability i its primary argument was based on a reading of figure one as indicating that there was some kind of hard wiring merrin that it was somehow not in dispute that that wasn't attached but that's not at all the case in fact at the district court pabst submitted an expert declaration where it says that that figure figure one is a high level block diagram that doesn't show and i'm quoting from their expert whether anything can be readily attached or detached and that's in the record at eleven seventy four to eleven thirty five so i think the agreement at the district court level was that figure one is a high level block diagram it shows the general functional structures of the invention but the communication lines in figure one do not represent an indication of hired wired lines between the interface device and the second connecting device instead figure one  connecting device and it be attached to the data transmit receive devices so this isn't like the case of ram that they cited where the only word addition was connection there's both an idea of a specific device a second connecting device and the notion of it's attached to other devices and all those that should be given meaning in the claim and we think that the approach perhaps is taking and saying this is just some kind of an interface to the interface device to make any sense because the claim talks about separately a second connecting device and that interfacing with the interface device and so they're basically just giving the second connecting device no additional meaning and we know the presumption is that can't use the additional term second connecting device to describe a separate structure and we submit that paps for originally agreed that that was a hardware structure that at least included a connector and that a construction that  detach an interface device well will then let me ask the questions are different what else could those first connecting and second connect lives be doing other than providing them attach a plain language and specifications doesn't prevent a clear disclaimer or clear lexicography that could impose these requirements and so at the end to left for that construction the same reasons you're left with the interfa device construction with these additional requirements that it's not required by the planes and that the specifications are not imposed and that's why they should be reversed as with the other plane the patients as well  agreed you can have an element that overlap in that it's both in the same element can serve as part of the d d r the as well part of the interface device would to address in the first instance because with respect to this case in particular the court interface device summary judgment or in the memory card ruling didn't turn on any street legal notion that the components had to be separate from each other as a matter of law it turned on her plane construction analysis erroneous that the interface device must be separate from the d t r t and because that decision was wrong the whole all the whole aspect waiting to come or judgement should go back as well and that's consistent with this court case law and by the way that ruling if reversed doesn't address the original infringement contentions that