construction is cases on necessarily narrow in light of the intrinsic evidence with the commission essentially did was start with a dictionary definition that had been provided by codex expert and construed the claim based on that definition of same crack it definitely was your own but the but that's not the point we've used the dictionary as a chap on the intrinsic evidence here the courts the commission started with the dictionary definition and that's clear from what the commission stated at ga one one five in the opinion they said the ramdisk term is clearly understood to have a definite meaning within the computer industry and the intrinsic evidence does not indicate that the inventor disclaimed or otherwise changed that meenie now that was not the proper column five line thirty four ram disk five thirty two is a memory area used for storing draw in compressed image data and that's that's essentially concert construction we applied except it's that's what memory is memory memory serves a function it serves a function is of storing data in this particular case it's specifically been allocated to store full processing on processed image data and we don't contest that we don't we don't contradict that there are definitions of ramdisk use in the computer industry and it's the fourth in the dictionary definition that also can be used to emulate a hard drive point is that when you look at what was said at palm five and then you take the the entire specification as a whole there is an embodiment describe where if you have a removable memory and you have the ramdisk the removable memory is what provides the functionality of emulating the hard drive and in that case it's not necessary that the ram disk also emulated and really the hard drive if you have an environment were only only exists in the camera then in that case it absolutely would need to emulate a hard drive but our point is that the commission went with an unnecessarily narrow construction because there is additional embodiment where you could have both the ram disk and an external memory that's clearly disclose in the specification in that case it's not necessary that the ram disk also emulate a hard drive because that will be the role of the removable memory testimony of our expert and even heaven that we've submitted and it shows this isn't true this evidence that was submitted shows that in the first photographic industry people frequently equate raw data with unprocessed image data those are two different things rock and process are you saying it's don't call that and still call that but they are two different things but raw data falls within in our opinion falls within the definition of on processed image data as agreed to by the part us courts have let let me start with the kodak patent i refer to it said g a thirty five thirty eight this is in the same time frame as the  ninety six for pan apple's invention and if we look at column one it states that some digital cameras in the prior art and it refers to a code that can capture in digitized images from a single image sensor and store the resulting digital data as relatively raw parentheses on process data so here's an example of in an industry raw being equated on process now the next step is the important step because that comes through at the bottom of the phone three of this patent it describes that a processor will perform certain pulmonary processing of the in as raw data so here's an example used in the industry there couldn't really be a better example than a kodak because certainly in time kodak was a pioneer in the photographic industry of raw data being called on process data even though it has filler gone some pulmonary processing and that's exactly why we think that the commission needed to check the specification and determine that when the past lose determined process in the the term of art it's it's used in the photographic industry as our expert dr dell testified that ever people and photographic industry understand that raw data is the same as on process and that it can undergo some you have to understand it that it's undergoing processing but that doesn't take it outside the definition of an processed image data within the industry why didn't you ask for a we believed at the time that people in the art understood that on processed image data was raw data that was described as a specification so we didn't believe it would be necessary to provide that in the stipulated definition did you then ask for some construction of the term and later point in time will that indeed we did your honor in carpooling our free trial brief it became clear that kodak and was going to take a very narrow view of what our process data was in our brederode brief apple cited and argued that to the agreed to definition of on processed image data needed to encompass raw data as zero zero eight three suspected that make more an argument to say that that that this term and compass is raw data as opposed to say we need to go back and  construe this because there is something that that has been left out of the consideration i mean you didn't do that didn't you know we didn't do that your honor because what we did is we made the argument at the hearing when it became clear that this this was going to be the position to take th court i was going to take that we needed to demonstrate that raw data falls within the definition of unprocessed image data and that's what that's exactly what we did that at the hearing we submitted this evidence the kodak family submitted obviously dr dell testimony to demonstrate that in the photographic industry raw data may be considered on process even though it has undergone some amount of pulmonary processing and even kodak's expert when and when he was cross examined emitted that there were documents in the record where hold a product up a domestic u s industry that's correct under the eyes of the i phone it's designed in man and it's not manufacture in the united states but it is designed all the research and development for the i phone is done in the united states and that would qualify as a domestic substantial evidence issue that given a choice and of which there are at least five and i think one of the arguments here in iraq image danaher the raw data is interesting but it's a substantial evidence issue the claim constructions are to make then you go on your second step and your second step is applying that instruction to the few subject matter asking the question does the construction define that to subject matter or an act you do not introduce into the second phase and commission made this processing generally and digital processing within the meaning of the patent well the patent they show processing from an analog standpoint processing from digital standpoint what we're talking about is digital processing that's a processed digital images all about your sensor responsibly generates a set of raw image data representing the captured him and that at that point pixels have been manipulated on a pixel by pixel basis to represent the image and the that there is some manipulation going on at that point at i mean one of the things you talk about in here when one of the other issues is the testing of the of the that's part of apple's problem with this case is pending about a unified memory architecture so if you look at figure five the idea here and by the way these are all computer concepts what apple a minute in their opening braces we didn't set out to design a camera we decided to set up  computer that had camera functionality so what they did they introduced notion that we're going to have a unified memory architecture and with in the end the ramp we are going to select out a memory area for a frame our brothers are going to select out an area for  commission the whether or not the nicest board pattern has a specific embodiment that shows on process or process image data being all draw that that isn't the point the point is that the the in as used in the industry it's known the raw data is sometimes undergoes primary process and and as this court has held many times it's not necessary for a patent to disclose was well known in the art so we demonstrated through dr testimony through the kodak patent that the that's the industry standards are enormous that process there that even though data mander go some place during processing it's still called raw it's still considered on process until the processing has been completed now with respect to whether or not the commission needed to consider the intrinsic evidence even in light of an agreed to definition we believe as we pointed out in our brief that page on our  there still is a requirement that a fact finder or a court consider to make sure that they are applying even an agreed to definition consistent with what the intrinsic evidence is in fact the commission did that with another agreed to turn for the pattern that we didn't appeal that was the term image processors and you can see that it g a one forty of the commission of pinion the commission actually checked to confirm that the parties claim construction as a question of law probably only kind of deal we can only deal with issues that are preserved for appeal if you stipulated to a construction how it how do you preserve your objection to that construction because it was very clearly it became a question by the time we got to trial team before trial it was clear that that kodak was taking a different position with respect to what the meaning of on process image data was she didn't you move to to withdraw your stipulation we didn't move to withdraw the stipulation but we set forth specifically in pretrial briefs that look there's an issue here with respect to the definition of unprocessed image data the parties are construing it differently and so that's what makes this case different from for example the tester a case that was cited in the commission brief in the kodak brief there the the court the commission actually checked and confirmed that the stipulated definition of the definition was agreed to by the parties was consistent with the intrinsic evidence and and that tester of the position later after the hearing was over was insistent with the intrinsic evidence but here is the exact opposite apple's position is was consistent with the intrinsic evidence because apple's position equated raw data with unprocessed image data and that's the check to the truth that the commission should have done with respect to the stipulated definition because it was clear that the parties had a different view as to what that that definition met but even if we agree with you on that point then but you were greedy that all of the others other than ram are substantial having consideration i don't agree with that your ok ok there's there's there's two points on that there was the term interim memory manager which is a claim term now the parties both that dorner definition of memory manager supply but in their briefs in in the end at the hearing the parties had differing views as to what the memory manager actually meant what the ordinary mean you know it was in fact it's it's clear from the commission's analysis if you look at the commission opinion and see a three twenty nine and then you look at eight to ninety three both of those are the commission opinions it's very clear this commission is set well kodak says memory manager means this apple says memory manager means something different i have that in the commission result that is a matter of claim construction so that is that there was no waiver of that position either with respect to what the ordinary meaning of memory manager was the same holds true for sets of image data which we which relates to the power management and the interface terms once again there was a dispute over the ordinary meaning of sets of image data and the party agrees that they presented their positions at the hearing the read it afterwards so that's different from the broadcom case and those are cases that are cited and codec in the commission's brief because there what happened was the of the parties challenging the construction didn't the but if you check if you're on if you check the ga two ninety three the commission analyzes what apple's position was with respect to the term memory manager and it's very clear that we have a definition we're providing to them that this isn't the first time on appeal or the first time after the case is over we said well wait a second we don't like like like the court position with respect to memory manager that week that was a dispute that was raised at the hearing both parties submitted what they believe was the proper construction of that firm and if you look at the entrance again it's on that the plain meaning we just think the commission got that wrong because the memory manager only need to allocate to the memory device the memory device can include the brain buffers and the ram disk but as long as you're allocating to something in the memory device you're allocating to the memory device the commission read that as saying you have to allocate to everything that's listed in the memory type device to frame buffers and the ram t is inconsistent with the language of the claim ok