her i know from past experience with this court the court has read the briefs in this for me with them and so with this amount of time i would like to reserve four minutes for the bottle time i'm going to address the same with the she got i think defines the critical question before the school and the issue which is dispositive of the question of whether the judgment in this case can be maintained and that is the definition i claim construction of the key term  and that is transformation object now this is an unusual issue claim construction because business on riggs although it did not agree with the market order issued by district judge white is not  for his his claim construction which we accepted and which we were going to try and which we intended to argue was as follows that a transformation operative is quote able useable component for processing data according to construction right you accept the original claim construction that was the claim construction project of the jury was not the page forty two in which she dealt with the problem she was encounter and the problem was when she had warned us that that which was counsel were not to our point construction issues to the juror that she would state the definition of transformation objects cannot be ordered she said that the witnesses cannot be questioned about what that ways to make what the judge is order on pla construction manager on contrary to that what happened is in cross examining our technical expert business arguments lawyer started cross examination which essentially it was about the prosecution from advocating different interpretation to the current instruction she took the position that it was a matter off for her to instruct on and it was not her counsel to be arguing differing constructions but they objected initially to construction at that time of transformation object nothing to do with what they're arguing in this appeal yet but they explained that yes so the judge judge white gave a claim construction and they said they kind of accept it that that their issue is between poor to clarify as they put it that point construction and that order was not and she said that she thought the plane construction was clear and she specifically said this notion that component has to be some discreet chunk of code somewhere was not with the plane construction and she grew pretty trial that that was the case in response to one of the motions and women we then got to trial and ignoring that were business objects tried to cross examine the technical experts on this very issue and that's why in the middle of trial we got back into it is counsel describes and is judge court explains in the order that she's issued on this subject that forty two at the time of the motion in limiting business objects that said in their brief if we lose on this issue then we essentially concede that as a matter of law we in french and she puts that in this order and when she ruled that that time it is that she was not going to let them off try to use the witnesses  claim construction there was no change whatsoever to your honor judge look there were isn't that what they're arguing is that the basis of their area that they they are pretending there was a change i can see that but judge who poor said that the claim construction transformation object was exactly what judge white said it was and in construing that she went back to judge white's opinion and said this is what judge white man when he granted that or were in his are the transformation optic contain meditator or not was was not in in a claim structure as i understand business objects argument that actually come down to the rest of the provisions of the coin which says there has to be mehta data corresponding to the transformation object and they say that somehow corresponding that were passed to be different somewhere else or exclude all of the environment in the past and in adopted they would like it to be adopted you eliminate the preferred by leaving the ija correct each example when the preferred and bottom end of a transformation object would be excluded from the definition based upon judge rule based upon their concession as she puts it in her order was that they cannot argue that they did not meet this element in their core they infringe  kelso also suggest that there was some sort of concession to the transformation object had to be this this single discrete chunk of code because the prosecution history there was this argument by analogy to transformation objects are like building blocks and can be moved around and stacked differently and such in the simple answer to that is this this was hardly the specific disavowal that this court requires what was going on there is kalil prosecution counsel was pointing out what the magic is of this and then and that is in a user interface you can take these transformation objects and move them around in the long strings of mathematical calculations to transform data and it is like building blocks in the sense that from the user's point of view that's what you're doing but nothing in the patent nothing in the specification and nothing in the prosecution history is ever said these have to be discrete chunks of clear and what's also interesting i think is that this court encounter the very  case the dependent set object has to be this nice discrete piece of code at a piece of c plus plus could and there as the district court did here the court this court rejected that argument and said no levels which is what business objects does and in that is in fact what we accused in our final infringement contentions an expert reports they're very clear that we weren't using just the c plus plus objects but rather  internal devaluation they then went on and launched without any further legal opinion or box the pork following trial initially then found that it would intense damages in a modest amount and we went forward until the seagate decision was decided at that point the court was faced with the dilemma of this this new test for  s and how she was going to handle and what she did we think it was wrong to take what she did was say in her mind under this new test there was a lot of doubt that the jury would have found willfulness and based on that she declined to enhance damages in her point is simply that if if she really doubted that the jury would have willfulness under the new task the remedy wasn't in on an enhanced manner but rather to order a new trial and believe that if there are holding that's a valid thing that a better factor and an exercise of her discretion i think if the question was how the jury would decide it under the new test the remedy is to have a new jury decided under the new te medical data about data so if you want to do a filter and only get the most expensive sales a meditative would say only give us sales for more than a thousand dollars that's medicaid we haven't had a date for the defense was that we had no transformation objects because our architecture did not use any transformation components we were going on journey to the right interpretation they were usable component of defense  do it was to have the underlying database especially with mathematical calculations like sunday and get to be done with s q l command so in some cases our software didn't even do the transformation the argument that