this court and my first official lacked was the higher chris so every particular kinship with him is employee number one for me and over the past eleven months it's been  a lot of fun but it's also been a bit of a chaotic repeat campaign and chris luckily thrives on chaos so it's been it's been a tremendous experience for me and i know that with his intellect and his abilities his character moral fiber that he'll be a success anywhere i think he'll be a great addition to our bar and wherever chris goes i know that's where the fun will be  i have so i have knowledge of his credentials and i'm satisfied that he possesses the necessary qualifications it's shocking that you've only been here eleven months of them and feels like a lifetime there's a subtle rewrite of the claim language that is being advanced by the telling us and that was adopted by the district court which is incorrect and which we believe constitutes air you can find it explicitly on pages fifty five and fifty six of the help we position for and try to rewrite the plain language which requires a mobile web site to receive data as mobile web pages to receive data and that's an important distinction here because the t the opponents both agree to the district court level that a web site includes all the associated databases grips and other things that are used to support the website to display the information that you find when you go there when in a web browser because the web page receive data from internal database but that's not really the point the point is that the web site itself receives data from extra data sources when that data is uploaded into one of the supporting database but here's the problem you say you are construction and you asked for quotes data becomes part of a website including in mobile web site at the moment when data is up loaded to exists on the servers designed to serve content to the pages i guess it's not the exact construction you asked for but that's the way to describe it on page nineteen of your brief the quote from your very sure and my problem with that is i i can't imagine defining a web site as every piece of data that exists on the server that happens to host the website because a server could host a million different websites right and so every piece of data that simply happens to be  ploaded to that server can possibly be construed as included on a particular web site well i think you're on a two point so that one is both parties i believe agreed that you had to have an associated database so in other words just because a database existed on the same server it wouldn't mean that it was a database that was part of the website just because some paid was also being generated on the server and the second point i would make is that  that's one of exactly the point of this huge web sites which is that the store tons of data that isn't being used all the time on the web pages it's only in response to a request that it's you know one of these millions of pieces of data is drawn from one of the associated databases and it could be on the same server ready to be on a website sorry what you see when you click on that web site it isn't a web site is all the information that's being used to display what you see when you go to a particular web page i know a website can consist of thousands of web pages but the web site also includes the web page itself wri web page it yes your honor i would agree with that the web pages are part of the website and then you can display in the mobile web sites doesn't exist until you request the website and then the web pages get generated  i don't agree with that the mobile web site existed before request is made and all the pieces of it have to be in place it has to be programmed to work in a certain way so that when a request is made by a person's computer for a made the particular pieces may be filled in dynamically but the page itself exists before it's ever requested it's it's you know it can be a template for any number of different driven technologies but the web site itself exists in must exist before it ever requested or you couldn't display anything browser i would also i guess know that the notion that the website was drawn in from x for no data sources when generating the pigeons isn't supported at all by the specification and in fact a pow wheeze argued that the act that this construction patent claims invalid because of a lack in that in the specification for any support for this construction but i still i guess i'm still troubled by how our web site includes data uploaded to a server that has yet to be incorporated at all into the site or any of the pages on the site if they are in available it could be incorporated if certain steps were taken to employ it but it hasn't yet been incorporated how was it at that point still to be considered part of the website well but it isn't proper that the point works uploaded all the pieces are in place for it to be displayed in response to a request that has to occur before any page can be generated and that's exactly what the of how we use a claim i give my kids a bag full of blocks and blocks on a house until they build a house that the block so just a bad man full of blocks isn't a house and so a server with a database isn't in and of itself a web site until it's incorporated the database into a website and web pages right i mean that's the problem i'm having if you want to say that these an integrated are nonetheless part of the final product even though they've yet to be built well the all of the programming they have been built houses are already been though your honor and your analogy and the bricks are outstanding and well it's already been ok i get it you're right with my analogy the problem is you just dumped a boatload of bricks on my driveway and now you want to claim they're part of the house even though they haven't been incorporated into the structure of the health well i think i want to get my value closer what your actual facts i  understand it and try to do my best your honor if you consider the house to include all the component rooms for example and you incorporate a piece of furniture into one of those rooms even if you're not sitting in that room even if you're not in the living room even if you're not looking at couch or whatever piece of furniture you want to use in your analogy to this piece of data it's still inside the house your house was designed to hold furniture this piece f designed to be used in your house and it's an even stronger case when you're talking about a website because unless you draw that association between the data source and the web page it can't be this way it has  done in advance and there's there's no reason in the patent given for an interpretation of it that would require the web pages to be going out and getting from an extra of a to source in fact it would be i don't know if i've answered your analogy question obama and just not i'm not sure i'm convinced i mean i understand your answer the problem having is i don't think that the data in the associated to it a database is like the chair in the house it's more like the bricks on the front yard you know and that's the problem i'm having is i mean i have a me probably everybody in this room has an understanding of the term website it's not really a super duper complicated term and i just imagine that expanding that definition to say ok you say associated files scripts in databases supported by one or more of the server right so any file associate anything in any file associated with the website  of the servers well couldn't those files contain a million different things that are never ever made part of any of the web pages never test never utilize it's possible although it's unlikely it's much more likely that will only be used on occasion so for example you know with most web sites if you're talking about something where you have millions of pieces of data pictures whatever it is that you're looking at only at certain times will they're always ready and they're there to be used at any time when a person asked there's no special process that has to be undergone in order to go out and get that data again it's already part of the website and that's in a way the whole point of the three were to patent which is to allow you to use one web site a content management website to designate an x purnell data source and make it part of this mobile web site automatically not you know not and i'd like to start by saying why it is that the accused products don't infringe either of the patents and sue with regard to the three for two patent in order to infringe when need to generate a mobile web site that is configured so that it will automatically receive data from an extra ill source designated by the user of the content management website and in this context the claim itself tells us that an external source is one that is extra ill from the content management website that separate from the content management website any of these products however it is undisputed that the mobile website is configured to receive data exclusively from in from the sources and not from sites get their data only from what is being called the content management website if you will in this in this theory of infringement because they're not considered to receive data automatically from any external source the accused products just don't have the kind of mobile web site that's called for in the client i guess the other side's title say that if we understand the website to encompass internal servers noted in questioning wireless things counsel is that a website has to have web pages and indeed the claim itself speaks about generating a mobile web site it's a method client so you have to generate a mobile web site site have to be configured so that it will receive data automatically from an external source and in this context the only way to make sense of generating a mobile web site is to generate the pages that can be seen in response to a request from a browser and so one needs to have a set of web pages that is configured so that you will receive information from someplace other than the servers associated with the content management web site and we just don't do that and that's an undisputed fact in the record and therefore summary judgment of not infringement was appropriate technologically speaking how would an accused product be able to infringe this claim running it through th server which is then used to generate the mobile web site on the one hand and configuring the mobile web site so that it will receive data from some external source on the other hand so in other words if you just describe possibility of uploading data is of course accounted for in the three four to patent claim nine of the three four two patent is not a that species of claim one it is an additional requirement and it indicates that receiving data automatically has shown in claim one has got to be something different from uploading that's described in incline nine and one can imagine that there were types of data that one would prefer to have more fresh if you of one could imagine that one would want to configure a mobile website so that it would for example go and get current sports scores or that it would go to some textural source and get some article of news or that it products you can't do that the evidence is absolutely clear in the record as undisputed that all you can do is upload it so if i upload the current price of shoes at nordstrom's online on my facebook pa that whatever i pasted there is going to stay there and the page is never going to go back to mobile web site is never going to go look to an outside source to see if that has changed or updated and that's why there's no infringement  i am prepared to talk about the ninety three patent if if the court has questions about it i would say in a not show that the claims of that patent require that there be a content management website having on it a list of selectable pre determined mobile information channels together with indications of whether those channels have or have not been activated by the user and then on the mobile web site there needs to be a set of links that corresponds to those pre determined selectable channels that have been selected for activation by the user and the record is clear that none of the accused products have that and indeed when wi for was asked repeatedly at her deposition to identify a content management website having a list of pre determined mobile information channels together with indications of whether or not they have been activated she said that she did not look for that and so the district court found correctly that there was an utter and complete failure of proof on the infringement case for the ninety three this is not even something that really depends on a claim construction issue there simply was a complete failure to put forward anything in the record on any construction that would show that limitation of the south side of that screen shot well there were certain screen shots that were included in the expert the expert report there there were a few of them and they were with regard to google products they were some of the same ones that  things brief with respect to the facebook products the screen shots that were included in the brief were not an expert report they were not disclosed and indeed some of actually find that the remaining three screenshots the ones that were before him and summary judgment didn't actually show at all the key elements that's absolutely right so if we if we look at the screen shots that were provided that the theory of infringement that was advanced before the district court was that that type of it so for google docs which was the only product for which screenshots were provided there was nothing onto a page as there was nothing on you to be only shots that were provided the theory was that when i go to google docs and i choose to provide i choose to create a particular kind of document like a presentation or a spreadsheet or a reprocessing document that that list of possible documents would be the  determined set of mobile information channels and so what you would need to have then would be some screenshots somewhere that had that list of types of documents together with an indication as to whether or not they would be visible with the mobile web site and then you would have to show a mobile web site that had a listing that had links corresponding to the types of documents that were creatin that's just not the way it works what you have instead is on the mobile web site you simply have documents that were created if they were created there are no links to correspond to the possible types of documents and similarly on the content management website there's there's nothing more than once of the mobile information channels there's nothing that correct there needs to be a listing of the channels together with an indication whether they are or are not activated and that's what's that's what's missing they have yet to point to anything that would satisfy that limitation but if they're corey's green shots that were before the district court you think page forty six of the blue brief is a screenshot that asks when one is creating a google plus page what category of page one is creating a super example is want to businesses when a club is one and an arts organization the only effect of that selection is that when the page is created it will have a tag on it that will say if it's a business or if it's a collaborative arts organization so there's there's nothing here on this website that would indicate whether if we call these categories mobile information channel there's nothing that would indicate whether these channels will be visible as channels for the that there will be links to channels on the mobile site there's no indication on this but if we turn to they then limit the scope of the a to the page that's being created it doesn't apply to the category which is the thing that they've identified as a pre determined list of mobile information channels and in addition the selection of an audience is something different from activating a mobile information channel to determine whether it will or won't be visible at a mobile site but the question of whether this is going to be on a mobile site in other words the audience selection it doesn't matter whether i'm at a mobile categories of content that i choose to make available to some people or not to others that's a different principle than the question of creating mobile information channels that will be used as an organizing principle at a mobile  that language make visible is it ok five translated in that that language in my head to mean turn turn off or that in well i think it's fair to say turn on turn off the claim itself explain what the consequences of turning on the channel is and the consequence is that the channel that you turn on will have a link at the mobile web site that corresponds to it and we see that it's written into the claim itself the three limitations were added and if the court wishes to see where they were added there were added  nine seventy seven of the joint appendix and then the fact of the amendments were described at pages fifty nine thirty five of the joint appendix and veges fifty nine eighty two and eighty three of the joint appendix and in those spots the limitations that were added were the ability to select activation of the channels he indicated that the page at the content management site that shows the indications and the listing of the channels and then had the mobile si summary judgment with all inferences in favor of the nonevent that this discloses a channel and an indication but not channels and indications for us the claim requires that the screen shot may show of whether or not said channels have been activated it's pretty clear that you need to have a plurality of channels and you need for each channel to have an indication of whether or not it's been activated so even if one were to construe this as an indication i don't that wouldn't satisfy climb but more of the point this just doesn't this this listing of categories just doesn't fit the description of the mobile information channel because there's nothing on the mobile website that corresponds to this listing that's and if we can say that there's a way to figure out whether it's been turned on or not turned on i would like to quickly just tick off the other couple of screenshots so that there's no question about whether there's anything on the the record on this point but i think you will find that none of them have the limitation that the district court found was missing namely there's no indication of something that could be called a mobile information channel together with indications whether that channel was turned on or not turned on i'm sorry i'm just having trouble getting to the pages infringement on the part of wireless and the summary judgment should be f and activated of all of the same claim and that the appellant have to concede that they're going to construe those terms differently as not being the same route activate and the specification under any construction you had offered any evidence that this claim element was satisfied that would preclude a summary judgment and there really were only three screenshots presented and so you want to go to those and show us power or any instruction at all this would i'll assume your construction for purposes of this argument show me how it would be satisfied in terms of proof green jobs i understand or if you change the construction of activation from a visible to you know operating then i would say that these screenshots along with the expert report certainly show that a person could operate more than one mobile information channel that there were indications of whether or not that mobile information channel had been operated on the content management website and there are links that correspond to any channel that been used limitation as you'd like it straight ok and because i have limited time also say the following i don't think that's argument was actually raised on summary judgment if it had been our expert took seven hundred screenshots of these public  threw up if you read their very eyes and if you believe that they specifically made this argument then i have to admit i just made a mistake because i didn't think they were raising this or i would have attacked the hundreds of pages of screenshots that are expert in order to confirm all these claims limitations but even if i mean if you change the construction of the court terms of activation and activate a ball and activated the way we propose i don't think it's fair to say that well your expert didn't support that alternate construction in her report as well when construction is already occurred she assumed as i think almost every expert does the construction of the court was going to be what was relevant