in the case is the starting point of the words isn't it designed it correct me if i'm wrong is to be none of the cases you look at the specification say all right what is there in terms of disclosure and then the question says in reference to all of the components of the the controller box in figure three that all of which would have indicated a digital electronic device with general computing or microprocessor example of something that isn't a microprocessor but nonetheless could serve the control function would be and then thing which is attached to a bunch of these machines would not be infringed in your view this  if i had a system that relied say on the simply running down the trillion or so calculated decimals of pi which is about as close to a random number generator system as you can come me ask you one one question this doesn't relate well if it does relate to this case but this is not one of the technical questions the the include our cases seem to teach is that the inquiry in this kind of the situation is two pro one claim construction inquiry and then sort of a fact based inquiry based upon what one skilled in the art would disserve from what's disclosed in the in the in the specification ok i think could be the law so it's do we have here a question a situation where the experts are balanced or an echo poised on what they say i mean taking mr jones on the one hand and mr news your expert mr latham's taking what we have in the record from them is this is situation where we ought to have a hearing is to what they said could operate as a controlled the first says yes and he has an explanation of the status change that might be part of the microprocessor state machine comprised within one and page twenty three of his deposition in the appendix it to seventy eight pieces equally i suppose if you were of the mark you could create something totally electronic without a processor and you implement some form of  in the first place control means by itself is a means plus function  super means clause are controlled means is represented by subordinate structure which constitutes the structure of the control means i don't want to try to get his head but it seems to me that every one of those elements isn't there here there is not what's wrong with the memory of random sequence or the several other pieces in fact we can go through each one but in fact those  words that when you actually ask mr jones on behalf of the company or when you look at the real work could be implemented by any one of the number of different structures but about memory that's the one at least in modern times which we're looking back to prison for twenty years but in modern times memory certainly is strongly associated with computing devices like why is that not at least was of us that were carrying the back and forth with our secretary suffer too many viruses and other problems on floppy disks so yes i would agree your honor that if it were mostly pocket of a computer but if one of us oneself in the early seventies this court rule is exactly accurate for what for what people were dealing with memory at that time but i'm not sure that example really helps you much because that seems to me what you believe straight it is the memory was even in that five to that to get two hundred i put in one seven five one could say that now has a memory which is mechanically showing one seven five until i hit clear ok but the question is not whether you could conceive of that as being a form of memory but whether the word memory when used in a pattern in this context would likely be used to refer to that kind of machine that seems to me a much more questionable proposition  something called out but it doesn't have to be done in hike verbal because all that you have to do is to call out something that a person of skill in the art would identify as in effect calling out docile and i guess edge three are good examples of which there was a general word but the conclusion reached by the court was that that word to a person skilled in the art would would denote something structure which wasn't expressly denominated by and in the patent why my question is why is my memory just such a case because the two witnesses here i to cover the entire field of all kinds of memory without specifying anything and i mean that the policy point here is patents need to be specific else need to be predictable focus i would like to just mention a couple of other elements in this patent particularly since it's now conceded that everything that each of the five elements are in fact and maybe four ounces that use means for stor i'm sorry the means for displaying is written is a visual needs and nobody can come up with any part of the visual a visual display that can be part of a that is fading if you said it's a microprocessor with a program he's got a microprocessor but when he says program or a device it could be a device it could be any place it is not no place in in this record did anybody say there is any such known item as a cycle register i'd like to comment briefly about and there  this i have read mr jones speaking for the company saying that it could perform this patent everything state machine in the cross examining this do it lab here in his deposition is focused on his to time all of this commentary is about a hypothetical patent incest and nothing about the size of the state machine that would need to be used to implement this patent in fact m to think everybody agrees that we at least have to make that question in this case the kind of docile question whichever way we come out what why is it that in light of the at least the about written descriptions for purposes o  the the jones declaration is not it is speaking about implementation of some particular device as opposed to being a reference to the to what's in the