on the claim construction of the district court with respect to a critical point from changing information you give a great that if we affirm the construction of changing information and disagree with you that there is a meaningful dispute the information which the subscriber is interested in to the subscriber now i think we're with the district court got hung up on the conservation of bandwidth well this does tremendously  the reason you often can't get very good will just because even today even with four g it's still slow compared to a dedicated network something very important also i didn't want to understand when the information provide to tell the demand engine server what it is that the subscriber wants to see and only what the struggle wants to see and only receiving delivery of that constantly updating information to those stops in the profile where's all that other information that you were telling me five different if your stock price went up because the stock price if you look at a figure eight is in a data field and the data field is not just the price all of the information in there and there's no change in your disclosure in this in this patent about just sending a number of what i believe the council was referring to at that time is there there was a difference that  that information according to the patent post initialization is the only data that has changed in then what happens that changed data goes through a process fourteen and also in the figure seventeen rather once that connection is made by the system then it is known what changed data in this case change prices go with specific stocks detail commencing at about calm twelve in the past wind twelve through town thirteen line thirty in there it's explained there after the price data is extracted of those columns it talks about how it's only the data that's changed that's supplied to the subscriber and then if you go on through columns twelve and thirteen the path it's specifically in order to overcome the band with a problem on the g s o network infringement of those issues are not enough for us today your honor can i turn to this let me ask you a question and you say this to a case that says that the prosecution history considered talks about how statements made in during prosecution history and related applications can be considered by the court in this instance your honor your honors in both the one twelve related application and the three fifty seven application wealth of those have the same specifications they distinguish between changing a non changing information so for example in the in seven three zero four zero three zero six one in three zero six two west said split the incoming star information into not changing data like  and changing data such as the stock price unquote another of the non changing data only has to be communicated once on your honor this is precisely how i explain the  west proposed new construction of updated information first boyer on it this is a change in scope it's a departure from what west told the district court all the way up to the trial that locations is continuously changing information and the that it claims were directed at the cell phone or the portable computer the subscriber's device asking the demand then to server first changing data from time to time when appropriate they're different it's a different invention a different claim term continuously changing changing and it doesn't have the first and second receiving means at all nor does it have this limitation of the first and second receiving means