appeal and we believe in all three the crucial questions for this court to address are one of substance and i'll start with the claim construction issue and we believe that an examination of the substance of this invention the substance of these claims and the role in particular the service provider element played in these claims demonstrates that the district court's decision to ignore the plain ordinary meaning of that term in favor of an says the service providers are there argument i regret this is the paragraph under the description of the invention it that's correct and below that it continues by talking as your honor mentioned about as used in  application and what you see here is both the district court and bank of america assuming that the application term means this patent application as opposed to what we contend that means of this application of the invention in description of the drawing this is further support for our position it says quote in the following section the following section is the one your honor just referred description of the invention and the following such an invention will be describe detail by the aid of a few example of its embodiments which is our position here and that statement at the beginning which points to the section bank of america leans on is in the  but book at system there is an example of dynamic dialogue matrix at the end and as i mentioned there is a there is every indication in the specification that that section is talking about the use made of the invention and one other point i would make on that and in this decision here is as you know if we put it in our brief the the definition of service provider taken from the spec includes the concept of a customer's intent what the customer w and while that could be theoretically proper i would submit that the fact that the definition refers to the state of mind of someone using the system is a strong indicator that that is talking about the use may of the invention as opposed to a definition of the crux of the invention itself and i also think your honor is very important for book claims and what role the service provider provides and because this court does regularly look to you look at claim one for example you will see service provider actually does nothing it is simply something to which an inquiry message pertains so if you if some other part of skill  reading these claims which we believe is the proper place to start the analysis there is no indication or no confusion that they would suffer in reading the term service provider as to whether this is just a provider of services or something different there's no technical aspect of that term it's not technical at all it's as we pointed out it has nothing whatsoever to do with the inventive aspect of this invention the invention disclosed as the novel system to communicate between a service should be very careful in attempting to ignore the plain ordinary meaning in favor of a definition from the specification and again the specification here does not even say in the present invention the service provider is x or is defined as y and as i indicated to the specification contain indication that that is an embodiment and even if it's the only and bodman even if the court concludes that that still does not tell you anything meaningful about whether it's proper here to import that into the cl you've been discussing the specification language on page seventy five of the joint appendix starting with fifty five in column three says the service providers are bose with whom clients want to make appointments reservations or other bookings and comprise the resources for the booking system to actually use resources a reference to i take resources is a reference to for example if you take one of the disclosed examples with an airline ticket i think what it what it means is the service provider has seats on the plane that would be allocated according to the examples around page a see the line twenty three dollars talks about a meal selection vegetarian before chicken which is not the kind of quote unquote reservation you would normally think of like an airline ticket or a movie ticket or allocation is a little unclear there i think you could say it's allocated but if you believe that's allocated it is difficult to understand how other product or service purchases would not be an allocation i mean two years ago no one would think pulling the paper was something that was scarce enough that it needed to be allocated but depending on the circumstances it can be and this goes to our major point which is this is talk of the limitation here is problematic substance of lee because it basically talks about the identity of the types of products or offerings or services offered by element in the claims that does nothing affects nothing and if you were to literally take the court's claim construction and extensively throughout the pattern that's true but the question is if that's appropriate appropriate to import that into service provider limitation only if it could be shown to be a clear deliberate meticulous definition disavowal which is no argument about it all or something that it least goes to the very heart of the invention here as opposed to something that is tangential like what we have you answer you answered my question that i had about the changes as we pointed out in our great that that led to this result and the result being we were thrown out of court despite the district court never once reaching the merits here and i'm going to focus on the last link in that chain right now which is the court's order that struck expert reports that we provided where we attempted to show why not withstanding the service provider limitation we disagree with that nonetheless bank of america's use fits within th problem with what happened here is that this court appears to have been under the misimpression that is order on the amendment of contentions addressed and disposed of the question of whether this particular concept the concept that what bank of america does qualifies as a book is that this report seems to have misunderstood and thought that it addressed that issue in the order on amending contention but that is incorrect you can read that order beginning end and there is absolutely nothing in it that addresses back question at all and then when the court struck the expert reports the entirety of the court's analysis was i already struck that day that was a theory i found it was a theory and i struck it but that order does nothing of the sort and the district court did not do and bank of america does not offer a standard to say how does one decide if a particular concept fact a new infringement theory as they contend or alternatively an explanation of how and why the original theory applies in view of the construction that was ma please the court i'll start with the claim construction the patent clearly indicates that the invention relates to booking systems and defines the claim terms expressly in terms of booking systems the section of the pa then lays out what the components of the of invention are in paragraph two when it says the booking system in accordance with the invention and then the rd paragraph again which judge larry referred to service provider and mediator are defined that is a definition it's a clear definition it tells those reading the patent exactly how to read the terms service provider and mediator going for going forward  patent and the claims the entire specification indicates that this patent is about booking systems from the title which is booking method and system through each section of the patent are about bookings the invention here is bookings the embodiments are examples of particular types of bookings or appointments or reservations that are included within the general definition of bookings and so everything about this path teaches that it's about bookings and that service provider and mediator is about bookings as to the section that council referred to  that was not argued in the briefs where which is the under the brief description of the drawings at column three all that section does is lay out what the figures are and  figures are going to be discussed later in the context of discussions of the embodiments and that's exactly what happens after the terms are defined and the invention is defined there are  two questions if i could please yes the st one is just it doesn't relate to claim construction or anything about what we've been talking about but what what exactly is i'm trying to with three different things and it ended up being one which was a system for the bank communicating with a customer about whether there was a fraud for instance  in the account and so was communications back and forth between the bank for those purposes had nothing to do with the booking or reservation or an appointment and it was never  ruling striking the expert reports and i think if i understood what he was saying correctly that the judge misunderstood his previous orders in the three day seven orders with respect to infringement contentions and improperly struck the expert reports that's what i understood he was saying what is your response to  that my response your honor is that the district court understood very well what had happened and understood very well what he was doing what happened was that bookit amended their cont those amendments were stricken properly and then when they tried to reassert the stricken theory in the expert reports the district court would not let them do that which was appropriate your honor the district court as this court is well aware has the authority to set up patent rules they're important case management tools they're designed to further the goal of full timely discovery and provide all parties with adequate notice and information with which to litigate their cases and in this particular district you were to do that early in the court warned you that you were to do that early they did not do that and when they were u nsuccessful in amending their contentions they tried to do an end run around what the court had done by putting those contentions into the expert reports and when they probably the easiest way to see that your honor is the amended contentions referred to a reservation engine reservation engine is not a term in the patent but it was a term they came up with for as the mediator and service provider of the asserted claims by providing a reservation and for booking reserving financial resources such as money or credit and then it talks about credit card blocks and credit card holes concepts that are nowhere in the patent but that was the contention they set forth and that was ultimately struck then the expert reports which are part of the record there were two experts said issue your honor one was shame talked about the reservation of available credit and or funds in connection with payment card transactions and so the reservation engine theory which was brand new to the amended contentions was repeat in the expert reports and that was how they tried to get around what happened with the amended contention and now there's been some argument made a actually this reservation engine theory wasn't new but that's be live by the facts here your honor they thought they had to amend the contentions in order to state their reservation engine theory and in fact they stated they stated in filing a brief trying to get further in the case on the new reservation engine theory they concede it was a different theory they said they were seeking discovery on their new theory not their old theory and that admission is that a five th topics meaning the new topics in the thirty six contentions have any basis in the original contentions and said these new thirty six topics proper relate to book it's amended infringement contention the rulings on the amended contentions an expert reports bookit stipulated to dismissal of the action and and and here we are in appeal as a result that is correct your honor case was a case where this court held that there is no abuse of discretion in striking expert opinion on infringement where narrowing of infringement theory was not disclosed in operative contentions the court ruled that you can't get around this by providing a very broad contention in the st and then a narrower contention later and it's noted in coming to this conclusion that the purpose of the contentions is to provide notice of the inference meant there is so that you can prepare this district court certainly had the authority and the ability to police the contentions that were required in this case and to ensure that both parties were given proper notice in most importantly in this instance make them more america was given proper notice of the contentions in the case so the case could be properly litigated along those lines it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to strike the portions of the expert reports that related to the new theory and that's and one for the point i would make on that your honor is that the district court was there's been talk about this being a death penalty for four book it it really wasn't anything other than the district court and forcing its rules and it looked very carefully at the situation later these amended contentions that we're talking about here concerning a claim terms and it looked also at another amended contention which which book at ray's related to divided infringement and there the district court said the amendment was proper because essentially learned of that information during discovery so this was a court that was anything but abusive of discretion it was a court that carefully considered the issues and thank you are on the question of expert reports there's a massive bit of confusion here and that is this with we're guard to the claim construction we did offer a truly new theory nobody disputes that and that theory is different than the one we're arguing about we proposed an amended contention in which rd party rather than bank of america would satisfy the service provider element that was rejected we're not appealing that decision the two points one is we have an alternative read that we're going to seek leave to amend that's the one where we change who satisfies the service provider limitation in addition however we made clear that we still have a read under this under the  construction as done because we contended what the bank did qualifies as bookings and reservations that this booking engine thing they're talking about and that's not a new theory because  of america was originally accused of being a service provider and is still accused of being the service provider that's what the that was the theory of invention that's what the local rules and that's what we are pursuing and what happened here is the confusion over the fact that we had a legitimately new theory coupled with an explanation addressing bank of america's attorneys the threat and what happen those two were conflated and the district court seemed to think that they all stand or fal together with no extra analysis needed and that's just wrong now nd with regard to this i'm not quite sure i understood the argument about whether this is properly before us but we had a stipulation of non infringement because the district court struck any attempt we could make to offer evidence to show the bank meets the service provider limitation under that scenario given what happened we had no choice but to stipulate an appeal because if we had pursued further we would have been  is a chart that shows clearly the original theory coupled with the explanation of how that meets the court's quite construction again done in response to the attorney fees threat and then under that you'll see the truly new contention that we all acknowledge