that is that identifies a person the district court however imported an additional negative limitation that the personal have an identification number cannot be associated with the device that's calling or being call the court did so for those five words that really the parties are arguing about here the words not associated with the device all the rest of the court's construction the parties are comfortable with that's my understanding  yes when you mention the inoperable argument how does that actually work charles are you open with that so if the entire point of this patent method were these patent methods is to connect users mobile users with radio frequency switches and to route calls to other destinations users it is the facts are clear and it's obvious that a human being cannot communicate with a radio frequency tower except for a device in order for the person identification numbers to be used to route the calls as the patten method requires those numbers have to be associated with the device simply the using the person delegation number unless the number is associated with the devices being rung don't you want and then claim nineteen where the well there's some dispute about what means in that plane but where there in claim nineteen there's no personal identification number associated with that with the device correct know it first or claim nineteen uses the term destination user are independent of a particular physical communication particular physical and that's the same language that's used in the specification that this record relied on the key is particular and what that means if you read the specification language is it's not associate with any particular device because the number to be moved from device to device but it has to be associated with some device in order for the so you're saying there's not an inconsistency between your argument that out of the district court's construction the invention is inoperable and claiming nineteen because that's just talking in terms of one particular right and to use a personal example my i have a device myself but i haven't personally beneficial number my phone number people put that into a address book that's a means of identifying me they're not identifying my device because my number can ship from device to device right now actually it's provided by our friends here  rising wireless but three months ago it was in a different advisor about three months ago it was in a different device provided by a t n t so it's not associate inherently with any particular device but in order for the methods to operate it has to be associated with some association with a device you can't have somebody access uses that is the number to access a radio frequency switch in last the numbers associated with the ones that actually accessing the switch similar you can't locate somebodies device and the path refers to locating devices in last you have the device associated with the number that's being used to locate and i would also mention that you're giving us the word associate a really really mean never associate it with it just means permanently associated with a specific device or location obviously it has to be associated with work and i think the better way to look at or the way i would look at it is we would we don't want to read the discourse clean construction so probably that it does rendered inoperable clearly that the district court didn't think its claim construction rendered it inoperable i don't think he would have come up with that construction so it let me associate it does not seem to me to be necessarily a precise term but then it has a it could have the broad meaning that i think you're ascribing to it on and or it could have a more limited me i can understand  clear and i let me ask it another way if if if we determine that what the district court met was that my personal identification number and that that negative construction is just that it's not permanently associated with would that be appropriate claim construction i don't think so but i think you saw it the reverse of stipulated stipulated judgment was based on the court's construction it didn't have that that extra language that you're adding in it and the reason it doesn't need it i mean if if you met associated on a more limited basis rather than the more broad basis we don't really know what we we we quoted language from the hearing where the magistrate judge said under arisings interpretation there can't be any association and there devices it's if it's under spewed a number isn't permanently associated with their device and if the hearing construction had used the word permanently associated there would have been a stipulated judgment of non infringement and simple judgment was based on the hearing where the magistrate judge and i can find that for you some point but in our brave the measure judge mentioned that are under horizons construction there can't be any association with advisedly that's the language he is i can certainly find that for you but we're looking at the language not associated with the device right since contention was they proffered this construction and they proffered this construction because in their device they put the number into the device it becomes associated with the device stipulated judgment was based on this construction and we stipulated because we grieve with arise in this area later based on your interpretation instruction based on the court's interpretive bessemer that's what i was trying to show me when you get back in the record where your interpretation is court's interpretation because if you're just pointing to that that limiting language i think it is subject to interpretation one of them might create with us unreasonable and renders the invention an operable i the other it more limited interpretation seems to me it's not correct pretty close to correct and i want to know which one the district court relied on our principle argument though your honor is that that limitation doesn't that it's really broad interpretation and that i really need to know what to do with what the district court was ok well then i think you know the deep is the solution then i think would have to be to remain and judgment because we're reading the language and we're doing this honestly we're we're really we're trying to make a chased out of a case that didn't exist and brightest position had been and still is that their devices don't infringe under this construction and they don't infringe because when they put the number into the device if it is associated with the device the word sociate means just that feels permanently attached to the device not permanently or because as i just mentioned i have one of their devices and tomorrow i can put it into i could put that number into a different device and if you look at the word physical location which i want to get into whereabouts i know but the the specification language also refers to no particular association with any physical any particular physical location it's obvious that the devices in the numbers are going to have some typical location it just moves around and so in this case because the number moves around so to is not associate with any particular device so it is just necessary in order to accept your position to agree that best because i'm just answering judge fuses question when he's referring to perhaps an additional limitation that there isn't expressed in the district court's construction we're based on that construction and that the court is going to change that and it has to go back i think it should go back device no incorrect as a matter of law because the term person either because number is not limited in that manner that it is about all of the cases of this court which say that the specifications controls what the invention only if it's clear unequivocal and on into us and it doesn't say what this record says it is i'm clear you ignore it i know if it's unclear you know forms between construction but it can't trump the plain language  clear now if the court wants to say it's clear but in a different way than the district court rendered it then the case should go back and we could then look at the other issues including the infringement edge but it's clear to us and that th  no not associated with the device means not associated with the device and their argument is that it is associated with the device or not a surgeon who will say as the rest of your time that's let's hear from the other side articulate one claim construction that they purport to be advocating on its construction that includes no limitation there's a lot of discussion however in their briefs and a little bit today that the word particular is really important to the construction they seem to be if not actually arguing at least maybe insinuating to the court that if this claim is to be limited it should be limited but sent back with the word now they haven't quite made that argument but i think they've suggested that perhaps the court should go that way and i just want to point out there are two things one they've never made that argument before ever and two before the district court they affirmatively told the district court that the word particular did not match for this construction well if this isn't that flawed we listen to the arguments if really mean that the personal identification number can never be associated with the device in any way no your honor it does not mean that the language doesn't mean that i face no one thought it meant that a lot including mr fennis if you look you're putting it in it is there's a connection to that particular you're using the device there is no question that you have to be able to put your pin into the device to use this invention we don't dispute that in this way this argument emerging we're not so much talking about pretty good argument that i mean the word associated is very fuzzy he does your honor and really let me let me ask you this because i do think that there are two interpretations the best one is the really broad one that seems to me to be to render the device  which seems to me and then reasonable interpretation and a more reasonable one seems to be what you suggested that it depended independent not tied to or something like that that seems to be the more reasonable one but he's saying that a worldwide on the they didn't come up with this notion that had this broad radical meaning until after the just legally what do we do when we find a claim construction open to differing interpretations let me suggest that i think it's either reasonable this they were both reasonable in your honor then i think it would have been mean the practical answer if it's incumbent upon the parties to make sure everyone understands with a clean construction is and certainly if we're going to stipulate to judgment of non infringement to make sure that what you're stipulating on is what you think it is and this was never suggested by them below so the district court was in a bit of a trick box on this issue you are because no one ever suggested to it that it had this broad radical meeting and in fact i which brings us to clean differentiation which i'm happy to talk about in a minute what he says here is that flame nineteen which has a person identification number that is independent of a particular political communications unit that's the language unclean like teen imposes essentially same limitation on the personal identification number that verizon's proposed limitation not associated with the device would if adopted by the court impose on twenty one he thought it meant independent of the device which is what everybody thought there was before the claim instruction  by the words what the quote what that word in the construction is right there was no dispute about that your honor they never suggested this argument so after they got this claim construction in which the pain is not associated with the device is correct for a variety of affirmative reasons which i'm happy to discuss that's only the case though if we interpret that as not meaning the broad interpretation yes i think that i think we would have a problem but again there's no reason to believe it means that it leads to absurdity and no one ever suggested that it might mean that it's a made up argument for a now your honor you i think were directing me toward discussing the affirmative case for this report's construction i can address that if you wish well yes i think it would be helpful ok the district court's construction as i think is undisputed has drawn substantially from column two of the past which in which the inventor sets forth quite expressively what a personal identification number  the personal identification numbers two are not associated with any particular communications unit or physical location but are associated with individuals it's a declarative unequivocal statement by the inventor purporting to describe the present invention that tells us exactly what a personal identification number in his invention is it's unequivocal it's clear it's precise and it's completely consistent with the inventor said they should be if the inventor to the extent the inventor describes his invention in a particular way he's bound by that he's not permitted to claim something broader than what he says his invention is and that's the construction they're seeking would do that and that's why it's not appropriate to return to to my point column one gives us the background what this invention is about it first distinguishes conventional phone systems in which it says could be associated with that and it contrast that to something called p c s distance and it tells us that the principal attribute of a p c s system is that it is a method for identifying telephone service independent of a telephone and it goes on to say that instead of tying billing and service to the phone it tied it to a person like that if occasion number which is not associated with the phone that's what it tells us a p c s system is it's really the only thing it tells us about the c s system and centers invention expressly said to be in the context of a p c s system it would be very strange if his personal identification number in his invention meant something completely different and it meant in every other p c s system as he's describ i don't see any basis in the specifications for or concluding that this language somehow is meaningless right if you have to if you want to interpret first an identification number the way mr fender would have it with no limitation at all you would have to just ignore the first paragraph description of the invention you would have to say this has absolutely no effect on what a person what the inventor intended a personal identification number to be and i think your honor that is not a plausible  additional point i apologize yes you have time the one thing i neglected to mention before in the discussion of what this construction in the same brief where they say that they think this construction  independent of the do something else which is very telling they tell the district judge actually the magistrate that they could still prove infringement if they've got this construction now as mr franklin said it's undisputed embarrassment system hidden and the  device like that they travel together a pin programmed into the phone if in fact they believe that this construction meant that a pin and a device could never interact in any way they could not possibly have said that they could still proven transmit and the district court would have had to explain what the issue is here he is arguing and they have always argued that under this construction there is no infringement because they programmed a number into the device and just because it's in the device there's an association with it use earlier it really does seem as this is a case about construing the construction i think the parties agree that the construction precludes infringement because of it but again is in line with your in fact it means that it allows a nonpermanent association with a device then there is infringement under that part of the claim because they arise and as i've said the pundits viewed it that you can take number out of arise and phone but the problem is you didn't let that issue go to church i mean we will you know well i seem to have lost your chair i mean if we think the claim construction the proper claim construction it seems like you all agree on the proper claim construction is that it's not associated with any particular device then we just sat there i don't i don't agree with that because we were limited to the plain language of the term person identification number and that ok talking about a total disassociation with the device that's what the claim construction says that's what we relied on that's what the rise and argued precluded infringement i think that they can come into this court now and say oh hey wait under the district court's construction there's no infringement that was their entire argument below and i can quote you additional parts of the record where they said that page has documents seventy six of the records on  support of the most for summary judgment with number portability we're talking about the portability of numbers the number is still associated with a device not a person even when moved to a different device it merely allows the subscriber to specify a number of a particular device the number remains tethered to the device not the person that's what their understanding is of differing construction this was in their reply and summary judgment that's a problem with the construction and if the court wants to clarify the construction so that it doesn't mean what's arising says it means and it doesn't mean with the language of the instruction set and then the court is free to do that and they know of a review but the case has to be remanded so that we can adequately prove the infringement which i'm not sure because he's not saying that their product doesn't infringe very unfriendly under the claim construction he's saying it's like this it's programmed into the device their understanding of the term construction that could still potentially infringe the jury might find that putting the number does it permanently tied to the device so it it's not associated with a permanently the way if not permanently associated we have a different case when it says not associated we were going to take to jury not associated with your frightened argument what's both of yours both of you have a problem because both of you are missing or you're looking at this the court has on occasion in cases involving the stipulated judgment remained of the record for a more clear understanding of how the claim construction reads on the device the court has done that in the past i can't cases but i read them some of the reasons that is an option if a court must do that the court has remanded the record so that we can clarify how the the the construction reads on the device and i use that claim destruction is correct and then re man for proceeding under the proper claim construction is it's not proper as it stands now and it's not the right plane construction has to be for the specifications