us as mr gray's indicated i'll be addressing the invalidity issues that are before the court i think there are three types of errors that the district court needs below the first would be then the district court did not hold the defendants the movements here to clear and convincing burn standard to which it was they were choir for approving a bill that sat in these motions for summary judgment rather than drawing inferences in favor of the nonmoving cats there are many instances where even there was substantial evidence presented by cats sometimes without any evidence presented challenge to cats as evidence in princes were actually drawing favor of the movements the defendants third in those instances where there was compelling and competing evidence including one example where the court found that there was equal need all the interpretations it crucially found again for  second paragraph for failing to appropriately associate a structure within the specification with a means in particular a means for receiving vs the quiver see competing experts statements declarations and evidence which describe the specification katz's expert dr brady explained in detail why it was those elements were in fact adequately linked to specific elements with drawing figures here where there was an equally plausible evidence the court should have the evidence in its consideration of this motion for summary judgment and denied it but instead occur in fact acted as a fact finder and instead of what's your position as to the difference our position would be you could share or interfaces that are between the user who calls into the system who gain most access what demands to be it and operating thing fifty two and the operating format is the entire the entire  fifty actually i think we have to take into account that we have the three different a or yes i think you can separate figure it's going from figure one completely it we have to look at the interface format being operated by formats in this particular circumstance because as you come in on various ones of the branches what happens is the caller's actually treated different call flows and so as a consequence you have multiple are  eight sixty three next to last meditation as to processing generally because there is no specific function that's being performed by the processing that those other elements are merely descriptive of what's involved or related to the processing but not specifically the sense that as in some of the prior cases on the notion of whether or not there are algorithms that are necessary connection processing functions the question is turned down where is the invention and what are we pointing to as the novelty of the venture in this particular circumstance we're not focusing on the processing only per se and so on like the w m s gaming case where this issue first arose and unlike in the other more detailed instances for instance in aristocratic blackboards net money ending where there are specific particular functions being performed which are important to the  we did not describe in more detail a more specific processing function we described elements that may be associated with the processing we did not describe or claim or at the point or to kill or function specification was that the operations that were being performed by the other processors shown in the drawing figure could also be performed by the interface processor so to the extent that there was processing on qualification for instance taking color number information to qualified as to whether or not they should have access to it you know format i would or processing that was described within the specification for the processors r other processors instead rather than have to plead guilty or disclosure i if if i may ask one more specific question is this one with respect to the sixty five patent claim thirteen you have  call to the operating operator terminal and i want you to tell me where in this space implication here is structure that describes the based on the condition e fifty to fifty one you describe the structure with respect to most of the prussians of that claim that we were in a situation where if we provided some specific structure that supported the means then if you were not in gauging a functional claim so we did not go through and parse for each one of the individual functions or processes i should say within now one unitary option for that process and individual structure for each one of those we did was we tried to look at the function as a whole and identify the structures that w performed the function as a whole with regard to the obviousness finding particular areas or leads to the combination of the schwarm and student registration references in essence the court was below was presented with d opinion based on the view of a person of ordinary skill in the or as to the fact that it would propose a combination of combination the defendant said before the court will just not work for its intended purpose and despite that which under the weak case in the case that it was not going to work for its intended purpose we were showing a lack of predictability if you will as part of the case or analysis then this combination would not have been appropriate and yet the core looked at the combination and still adopted it not accepting the evidence presented by mr katz and instead ma factual determination in the direction of the defendants what's worth noting however is that the defendant here on appeal had adopted it different rationale for the combination of those references they haven't even maintained the same position that they maintain  call and that's the distinction between those two structures and when the arises because for processor to the pads you describe it as a computer that can be programmed but then left out of the specification disclosed in here for how the qualifications are to be handled by this process or it's entirely shrouded in secrecy as nots close to anybody how to make the machine that does what these  requires program input to make the system work the failure here is by simply pointing to a black box but not identifying with the public at large how that box in the program to make this thing work they haven't carried sixteen or thirty or fifty or whatever two of five years of district court with addition bring twenty six issues up on appeal and they will start the whole thing over again with a nine hundred forty five point is that it didn't assert and go through another five years of litigation and bring another twenty six  the same argument that they never could be precluded until all one thousand one hundred seventy five claims have been tried to judgment and second proceeding if you are right that all these claims are typical the second proceeding would be a pretty short one maybe it's not right despite the fact is it clear to you that by virtue of having denied the stay in sever request the district court's judgment has terminated all of the plaintiff's rights and all those other claims are would that be something to be litigated if in another case if they brought another lawsuit and the contention were made that came forward on these issues with what amounts to a no evidence motion there is nothing in the specification to support those claims the defense don't have to put up an expert to say  happened speak for themselves and what the plaintiffs did in response speaks volumes the plaintiffs don't point to their patents they point to their expert dr brody effect in their briefs they say dr brody who is twice as often as they cite their own patents should tell the court something about these arguments experts cannot create facts your honour's they can explain facts they are very useful for that but they cannot create facts and the problem  this giant portfolio so christine it doesn't mean a single can balance playing with the district court did tracking very carefully through the rejecting most of the defendants arguments said that only a few claims to defend the plaintiff did not raise a genuine issue of fact because of those claims dr brody was not explaining what the skill in the art was or but rather was created and this was explained to the person the schoolyard could take that teaching and then do something else with it i just want to raise a couple first of all as to mr perry's discussion with regard to visual display and his characterization of yeah evidence that cats presented it's completely inaccurate if one looks even simply at sixty one to sixty four of our opening brief you'll see multiple references to three sixty which shares the same specifications the sixty three and has a person presents this specific elements which we believe support the visually displaying capability and his judgment pointed out this technology lends itself to the explanation i want to work mary schiavo not only due to its complexity but also due to the time period talking about we're talking about inventions they were made twenty two years ago it's something to sit here today having used many of these systems ourselves over the last fifteen or twenty years but to put ourselves back in the position w actually include explicit excerpts from the patent specification so we really have included a good the patent specification in addition to the explanatory material th provided separately as a rule thirty eight sixty three issue and claim ninety six first of all were on top about the claim construction issues below the parties did not agree that element ninety two was the only element which corresponded to the means in fact there was a dispute as to whether only ninety two were in alternative structures would correspond to th and the core found that element ninety two rather then processors p r one through p r n constituted the do not accept our position as to the alternative structures at that time during the course of the summary judgment proceedings we presented sufficient evidence to show that in fact the interface structure twenty also was a corresponding structure it's a special i structured it doesn't need algorithms and as you know as an aside even if this court were to go ahead and apply a strict warrant based on the risk to practice some algorithms would be necessary for the processing unit to correspond to these means for processing we've provided plenty of evidence with citations to the specification and dr bruce explanation of how the interface structure works to show that specialize structure certainly corresponds to the means for  claim ninety six but the means for processing is to simply stated claim it's a claim that only is dramatically different from the elements that we see in aristocrat where they the means was for defining our pre determine given file each of those were specific functionalities that were being called out for to be able to get to the point where aristocratic lies mr perry must somehow you were into the processing  of the operations and results that he pointed to in the specification they did not raise this issue in terms of bringing those functionalities into the processing operations themselves the means for processing simply stated i