operations present in the instruction groups be right justified that's a claim that's a true that does not appear in the claims it was added by the district court on the theory that there is disclaimer or disavow or anything look at page two of the appendix it's as plain stipulate based on the foregoing construction of instruction groups that none of the products infringe it doesn't have anything to do with his other clan construction has it hundred stand what that meets and we were got a judgement here that's based on the construction of instruction groups how do we get this other construction to be part of the judgement where the language that makes the judgement depend on that it was part of the  that to your first point what is there what are the in the grey brief and the reply brief you again repeat that it doesn't require that the claim doesn't require that the akram to be right justified and you know that the oh ok this is an unusual pattern at least as i understand it because the description that the heading here is detailed description of the invention whereas most patents and i've seen talk about a detailed description of the preferred in body and this difference could be significant here because you're basically claiming that the right justify language is addressed to the preferred embodiment rather than to the invention as a whole so what why does it have different instructions and showed where in the case of each of those instructions was described that stated the concept very well one hundred percent help where does that suggest that the operandi doesn't have to be right just these references to write justification were just talking about examples they seem to be describing the invention of the whole web where show me some language where this is described as just relating one of the examples each same all the time that it could be either right justified or left just right now now you're saying vention allows you to use a different place and this and then i see invented processor i presume the  middle and where it says page thirty three discuss variable with operands associated with jump tight right that goes back to the  to the previous page it says in the interview the examiner desired to know where this aspect of the invention was taught in the application as filed and so on teaching locations of these this is one of multiple locations in the specification that teaches this concept  claims have been been rewritten to make the language more definite and to define the invention better or the prior art to specify more clearly that the operand instructions are located relative to a boundary of instruction group is the patent application consistently then would refer to the letter to the spec where this was proven with this it existed it doesn't it's not like it's not like si and the and the instances where i showed in the in here is one of those examples where the difference over the color is always defined in terms of the preacher position and then the right justified is given it seems to me a bit of an odd way of looking i would have thought that you and not focus on language instruction which doesn't seem to have that much to do with this but on the language of pre determined position why isn't that the language to focus on and here there is the language as a retailer claim always references a pre determined position of any starting groups and i agree it could be just that this case to be argued on either whether it's a pre determined position with instruction group or whether it's the definition of instructions or a self but the important aspect is that whenever an operand is around we're talking about something be right just a card we're saying to predetermine position is right just go right t term right justified or other language that is specific to right justify what others want well sometimes what they reference is they talk about the meaning that in your structure that is right justif there's no there's never been any dispute either below or on appeal that when the prosecution history references that were made in bits in the instruction of yours that that's right justified and a good example of that is that a three fifty three three fifty four says the process or in the instant case solved this problem by placing the operands always in the same place with the structure group so they only fixed place it continues on at the bottom of that paragraph but that doesn't tell justified this and then i say it's always in the same place the natural connection between those two is that it's always right justified and in the same section they continue on to sa have before us sure presumably is this right justified would be all and end all but that is not the issue that decides infringement gets used our devices neither have their operands always right justified nor do they have the operands always in the first place so you can't so you do acknowledge that you can operate there and have left justified operating i mean you can perform can you complex for the purposes of the invention if we left just think so when we asked him we said wouldn't work with anything other than justified operands and said no i believe that you could achieve essentially the same results if you just took all the circuits that are connected to the exemplification here but even after they they have a moment of disclosure they have their first prosecution history exchange where they say they're always in the same place they have the second  this is how they defined before the patent office there is there is no reading of this that one's going or can take away that it can just be placed elsewhere no i didn't want to just briefly they couldn't meet the claim construction both on the term instruction group and the aspect that we're talking about there is a ghost of the proper definition of the term instruction if they didn't stipulate obviously because we've lost on that point yet but i know it's not ok by the time the proper definition of the term that is implicated by the judgment requires that it have this limitation against thirty two bit single instruction but whether we construe this other time limitation one way or the other doesn't affect the judgment if the court were to rule against the right justified which was in the stipulation and then we turn aside the judge you would set aside the judgment yes that's correct  but what i wanted to present is if that term or an instruction group is only going to get the final once in this case i want to make sure that we have at least our opportunity any basis to go against that but if your eyes go that way i would not want to be caught in the situation where you go back down to the district court and the definition of instruction which was clearly before this court and clearly before that for down like justified is one of those and the fact that the phrase invention appears periodical is always in the context of an invention defined by the broad but not all of the operations do and of course the claim doesn't require the claim all the requires instruction groups include certain instructions at least one of