me please the court the statements in the specification that were cited by the district court as terms of exclusion are actually terms of inclusion and that's the crux of the er that means that the court should reverse the claim construction below the patents in this case disclose software the client module that runs on the phone and allows the claimed features which are predict not just on intelligent communicators with a lot of processing capability but it also can run on regular cellphones because regular cell phones are included that doesn't mean we're powerful devices are excluded and then i think is the crux of the year of the low in looking at the language cited by the district in its claim construction it repeatedly cites to language of advantage that the client devices are able to run on mobile phones that don't have a lot of processing resources but that language doesn't rise to the level of saying that more powerful processors cannot run the program but there's other statements in the spec too right i mean when i and then the summary of invention says here's our solution you know unlike that we're going with the client mind or going with a lightweight processor i mean that the inference is pretty strong is what the district court bought off on that the idea the inventive concept inventive contribution here was to offload all the processing power for these various applications to server and not have some bulky computer module contained inside your mobile device may offer a fine no that and that is looking at the claims novelty wasn't already resident within the intelligence communicators and in fact there's no evidence in the record that the intelligent communicators could do anything that claims so the point of novelty here is not that we've created a mobile device that is thinner cheaper less processing power that's an advantage of the client module in other words when i read the adventures of saying about the first twenty pages the industry took the wrong path the path taken by the industry was to build bulky communicators to have a client margin she's not a computer module on top of a bump i found a better way of doing it and that is to use a lightweight software program that allows the phone existing resources in the phone to become a klein on the network what that means is not my my client m processor size or power the but the question here is whether or not there is enough in the specification where there is a disavowal i mean obviously computer modules and using computer modules in the phone system was something that the entire patent was trying to move away from and touted as important to move away from so i mean there's so many derogatory statements here in your specification that how do you get around them because of the reason they wanted to move away with for marketing reasons most of the statements say they're too bulky they're too expensive but there aren't any statements anywhere in the to really understand the market i mean you can build a better mousetrap because it's killed now to better or you can build a better mousetrap because it's smaller thinner better looking and people prefer to kill mouse with that but the question then becomes really if i do build something more marketable is that a disavowal of subject matter appended to ponder plain meaning my claims and if i can give an example you know let's say i was to come up with a new method of streaming video of an application that streams video and it's a thin lightweight application and it can run and has additional features like fast forwarding and i say to you i've got a new application it's then it can run on a cell phone it can run on a tablet it doesn't take a lot of processing speed and it doesn't take a lot of memory it can also run on a laptop or desktop have i excluded my touting the advantage of saying you can have video in your pocket have i excluded video on the desktop i don't think i have in that context and i think that's exactly the context of what is going on in this patent where the inventor says i have a new client module that allows a lot of features in the in the specification is replete with features that aren't just based on smaller size but are based on basically web searching features that's the concern i have with your reading of the patent the patent talks about all these problems the prior art and then  phones and these new communicators have come out and they're bulky and they're expensive and people aren't buying them because you can't walk around with them and make calls where you can with the cell phone and what the inventor says he is i've got a film lightweight program it will run on the cell i've overcome the marketing problems the commercial problems of these intelligent communicators which are have a lot more processing power than you really need but i don't think the inventive would have said if asked could your client model run on the more powerful phones were so yes it can and so the question before the court is did the inventor exclude the more powerful phones from the definition of what a mobile devices because they're within the pla and you're right thinking in response to your question that's why it's not a swap out and that's why i say it is more of inclusion of additional of devices that previously couldn't be included certainly you have to agree that it in at least one environment it right and the user is able on his cell phone to essentially type in and handle entire purchase order through the network they first say is notice the user is entering data and not just simply selecting a menu and the importance of that is in the next sentence is the user's using the cell phone as if that computer connected to the network but is explain more below the cellular attempts to create an intelligent phone i read that as the inventor saying look how good this cell phone can behave but i don't we that is him saying by the way i intend to exclude somebody if they wanted to use a more powerful device and is further as further support for that i'd go down a little further in the next column in column fifteen around six line six and there are the inventor is talking about another example of socially doing an online transaction and he says the process is of this invention quote permit cellular telephone one hundred two effectively utilizing the application on server computer on network even though that's the keyword even the so  telephone utilizes only a microcontroller found in telephone and does not require a separate computer michel as in the prior art even though so the word even though is word of in my view inclusion in other words clearly patton acknowledges in the district court did as well in this construction the idea that a microcontroller can be present on a good old fashioned cellular telephone independent of a computer much all which might also be a microprocessor microcontroller but so is that what your argument about columns fourteen him to conquer i don't understand your argument to come fourteen i don't know how you you have explained to me and i not following your argument the second seems really clearly a swap out for me and so i'm not following it so is it because your hinge in it when the idea that later on it says even though you can have a microcontroller because i agree with you as to the district court that this patent contemplate to the inclusion of a microcontroller not on is reading respect to the creation of understanding the problem in your head and his invention what he is saying in my reading here is look that i'm able to use my phone as a client on the network and specifically it's not a combination of computer module and wireless communication module it's a funny look how great it is but what i don't read him saying there is i intend to exclude more powerful devices from using my invention to become a client on the network and one of what's very important here your honor is the that this communicators the four five examples have given in the specification they couldn't do this so this isn't a situation where the inventor has to say to get over the prior art i'm different i have a small thin device they didn't have these features and what's in the record on these is the applicants here did not invent this client server architecture and he told us that in the specification call nine says line twenty or thereabouts well client server architectures have been used extensively in computer networks the client server architecture implemented using two way communication data devices yields new and unexpected results that's the distinction of the prior art computers versus two way data communication devices the inventor is telling us in that passage that the two a devices that issue are not computers even answers but the real question is and this is what your friends on the other side would eleven for example about line thirty five the applicant says that the device devices quote built according to the principles of this invention are not expected to have a significantly lower battery life than standard cellular telephones or to a pagers if you did what mr stevens has suggested this morning and install the thin client while model honest simon from one thousand nine hundred five it would have had the same poor battery life about thirty minutes as that simon did because of the computer putting a client module on to a cell phone without a computer much all that's there's no doubt that is the first of what is disclosed here and this sentence just says building it this way you're going to have significantly myth that this is the case ought to be resolved as all clinton structure cases are reading the specification as a whole to the claims the claims require at least of the four and a four four seven patent the client model running on a processor we know that there is a hardware limitation these coins so what is the process or is it a microcontroller or is it a computer much we know that it is not a computer model by for at least four steps first there isn't one embodiment for your six a disclosure of exactly what the microcontroller is find that it's about absolutely not your honor we made that point in response to the inventors argument in this court which they did not make below that there was no reason for this disavow there was any reason to disavow it which was to take into account the par prior art computer systems could run applications on servers that's absolute speed in fact that's how e mail has always worked the e mail resides on the server and the client device accesses the prior art devices including simon had e mail functionality using servers that's the evidence in the record that we put in on that point so that it was not enough all of these things by the way the invention here simply says that the device can send a resource requesting get it back from a server if you had describing the advance over prior art computers by saying i for the first time have developed client server architecture for non computers i can take the little tiny bit of processing power in minute memory and if you look at the description in one of the embodiment that is truly a tiny mouth sixty four killed by one man one mix of instructions and say i can use that tiny bit of processing power that existed but why i don't understand  why i don't know i feel like you're taking on a bigger burden and you need to get more power to you what why are you saying it's absolutely clear he could not have gotten this these claims on a standard cell phone with a computer much all why these claims adds lots of advantages even to a big bulky phone for example dynamic processing right you know you don't have to re burn stuff on the old fashioned phone you can dynamically interact with the server therefore gain access to lots of additional applications without more power consumption not necessarily replacing the old computer module in terms of its power consumption but you could get even more by adding this client server on to the being which you held up exactly right or an art cell phones i didn't think that that was decided below i'm surprised that you're making that claim so forcefully to us because it doesn't necessarily seem clear to me by any lines eighteen through twenty one the distinction being drawn through out this patent is between computers or computer models on the one hand into a data devices on the other the suggestion now being made in this court twenty years later by where planet i those two way data devices included computers our argument of which this is only a part to work is that they did not include computers from the very first line of the specification which says the prior art attempts to combine computers and devices was not successful citing specifically the simon and then it goes on to explain why this thin client model that was developed to run on the processor the microcontroller of a cell phone was an alternative approach it was a way systems because they were computers this invention he says bypasses the operating system because there is no computer included a computer it would include an operating system and that advantage would not be present second judge and on come fourteen a line forty one network the client model running on the microcontroller makes it act like a computer but it's not a computer in fact it's goes on to say that as explained more likely to go below excuse me is a standard digital telephone and it goes on to quote again from the background through the summary through the written description every figure every disclosure all points in one direction the use of the thin client model of the microcontroller as distinguished from the use of a computer much in there is no disclos the prior art devices like the simon are failures and i have come up with an alternative unwired planets argument now is this these claims cover the simon i would  in many ways perhaps but not to cover the very device that what i name what's your response to your friend on the other side argue that the mere fact that they tout marketing vanishes from  a computer module is not relevant to the question of this about do you agree with that i don't agree with that at all these are consumer products they are only valuable if they can be marketed to the public the background of the invention makes clear that the failure of the prior art devices was they wouldn't fit in your pocket and they were too expensive therefore people wouldn't buy them simon's all about fifty thousand units before they discontinued it the approach that was adopted here was allowing the then existing small font to didn't fit in your pocket and were we could be affordable to have sort of a rudimentary internet access we could send out a resource locator and get back a line or two of text which was new and a benefit perhaps but it was not internet browsing as my colleague now suggested it was a very limited protocol approach to the internet marketing advantages which are driven by technology absolutely can be the scope of this about all because the goal of this is disclosed from the very beginning of the summer the invention is to create a small lightweight affordable device with sufficient battery power that consumers would actually use it so to dismiss the disavowal as a marketing based point i don't agree with it is a matter laws a matter of fact it is a a consumer product that was that the technology of the time did not allow to be made is an interesting that in that respect the patent acknowledges that in five years or more computer not models would come down in size and cost the applicant your patent cover the simon the only answer he would or could have given was no and if that is it was time simon didn't have a client server so if the question would be does your patent cover the signing if you as a client module that's not directed more a client server email system we site that a page six six one one of the appendix these are in the record your honor there's not a lot of technical specs on it but it is certainly the case that e mail in one thousand ninety five was a client server about them now because you know this invention is not necessary in a computer there's no reason to do it that's you know the answer the unanswered question i suppose if you have a computer you've already got client server capability you can already send a resource locator request to a server and get back an answer and turn it into a graphical user interface computers did all of that in one thousand nine hundred five the only thing that was invented here was taking that capability and smashing it down into a tiny little piece of sophisticated and he had built intelligent communicators before this company this was designed as a temporary work around to a nine hundred ninety s technological problem nothing to do with modern smartphones which is how this what's the status of the your out of the patent office has declared the over three seven patent or is rejected the remaining claims of the zero three seven the applicant cancelled two of them the rest were rejected the appeal to the piece is pending supports and is one of the strongest passages in our favor i direct the court's attention to around line twenty two of call nine where it says this invention allows for the first time a wide variety of to wait to get communication devices including but not limited to so you are phones to a pagers and telephones to become open application platforms which in turn empower software developers to deliver value added applications and services to any two way communication device which incorporates the principles of this invention the importance is the client module frees application developers from the proprietary operating systems of phone and other mobile a data communication device yes and if it runs the client module that practices any or all of the claims such as we haven't talked much about predictive text entry update notifications also caching websites caching linked pages if it does that it would infringe because i don't think there is a disclaimer and there was also another statement made by my friend that along the lines of this was a temporary work around it wasn't a temporary work around the crux of the invention really is what we just read which is the ability to run and a client module that turns your mobile device into a client on a network and allows  features that are playing there's no need for a work around there because we've basically established through this invention a and eco system of sorts of providing software and applications that can