the fundamental issue in this case is an issue of claim construction we're dealing with patterns here that cover memory models that are able to train their own on module component s and there's no dispute as to how the accused devices in this case function all the parties agree that the on module control circuit generates a write command and then that write purposes and you're saying that that extraction constitutes generate right that's correct and we are saying that that the term generate any transformation  modification is called the contained within the meaning of generate so if there's any transformation from what is important where is output there's any modification from what is in put what is output that would satisfy the meaning of generate that's consistent ok so if you have a big box a gift box for christmas and you've got a glass in there so you path between the class certain spufford so that the glass won't break so when it's delivered and the other person receives  extract the glass and the extract the buffer is your view that that nd step is also generating what is certainly different than a pass through and which the package just went on a conveyor belt  opened so there has been a transformation in that situation we can if you will the glasses you sent are the same glasses that you meant and the other stuff was just extra stuff to protect the glasses but you're saying some new product exists once you remove the glasses from the package well i think that we're hyper focusing on an individual data bits the claim language is data and the construction is data so if you're looking at my training between what we want to happen to those then i think you're looking at the wrong place what happens in the it used a vice it is a twenty eight dollars bits of data come in so the packaging and the data and in the training bits are all packaged in have a question what you very sad but if we actually say both of the other cases should be affirmed this case just goes to mr right i can't see any claims that are left in that are covered if we absolute final mandate for some time and until that happens i think this case remains relevant i think technically we often say cases are mooted when there are companion cases they remove all the claims and they're on the same timeline as the others so you can always person who play so i think it's important to understand where the construction of generally comes from and it comes from a p tab decision so the l a j and in this case adopted p tabs construction of the term generate and pete have been construed this under the broadest reasonable interpretation and what was going on it was that there was an individual data by being sent through a circuit and petitioners were trying to expand the meaning of generate to such an extent that intermediate switches would be considered gena data generation elements just because it was passing through taub therefore expressly stated that within this within the scope it actually excluded from the scope of generate merely pastors just if you just provide or said and or or relay a signal that's not going to be considered generate however if during the course of this relaying there is a transformation of the da signal that in a signal is modified in any way then that would be considered by peter under the broadest reason what reputation standard a a generation of that the and that was spits from the other bits that are there to make sure that the data hammers properly we see the previously generated test so that's the way he construed the people tabs meaning a generator right construction repeat out agrees with netlist that any difference between from data coming in to data coming out is sufficient to show modification and therefore sufficient to show a generational so even if that were correct even if you were correct on that where does that lead us what is your view that he was required to adopt the p tabs p r i construction as you understand  misinterpreted the construction that he adopted he subsequently narrowed the scope to while looking in properly looking at the cues device to say whatever type of transformation we just saw there because he does  that it's arguably transform and he does admit that it's reassembled but he says whatever kind of transformation we're talking about there that doesn't rise to the level of bring into existence you didn't tell us what would be a transformation that would rise to the there was a command that issued to the data buffer and that command was twenty eight bits long and it instructed the data buffer to then form ultimately to to right into its multipurpose registers to an eight  if this was just a passive circuit we would have seen all twenty eight bits get sent right up to the memory devices but that's not what i have instead what happened is they brought the eight bit word into the eight bit buy into existence and then divided it and sent it up to the memory for it to continue that the training procedure lis st agreeing to a claim construction and then simply disliking the non infringement outcome that naturally followed from the proper it is your friend correct that they all j at the i t c conceded that training that's are generated and again they are just simply passed through transmitted through the accused products yes twenty extraneous bits are put on but they were taken off i think he was brought up in the same eight it's an alternate neither value or sequence or even to memory in the full imitation recites generate data for writing to memory so that's the key component what is being generated for read into memory it is the same image of a transformation as part of the claim construction  previously generated yes the agreed upon construction includes transformation modification but has to bring into existence through the transformation modification your nothing is being brought into existence as the sane externally generated eight bits put on some  footer but it's taken off and then right into memory the same eight bits and altered in either value or sequence but in written to memory i think your glass delivery analogy was spot on the single best it's known is put in a box you put in that issue paper take up a tissue paper it's the same glasses that are delivered and nothing is transformed modified these are the same bits that are written to memory therefore contrary to the greed of on construction contrary also specification also contrary to the arguments they made before the people to avoid invalidity were they clearly excluded that generally can mean passed through or transmitted because s to be bring into that this clearly is moot x y says becomes becomes moot immediately it doesn't wait until after the hearing process or anything else that operates immediately and that's the proper disposition of this appeal is to dismiss it on that basis this is not a claim construction case as a straight forward question substantial evidence to support the construction though everyone agreed upon and you'll i like your christmas present example i also like our experts baggage example end of the day what bring something into existence well it's not taking it from one place to another they conceded that and probably the i p r you have to make you have to create it you have to produce it and when you take eight bits here and you put eight bits here that it's been a claim construction case all on the l j and his id acknowledge that there was a difference in the understanding of this claim term in the understanding of the scope of his construction  in fail to resolve the dispute with respect to the claim scope during his claim construction analysis in noted that netlist had an over expansive interpretation of generation that's at appendix seventy one  what i think it does if you look at appendix seventy two dollars you know it's an implicit in complainants argument is the idea that transformation in modification are specific examples that are wholly contained within the meaning or the scope of producing bring into existence which is exactly that list position and which is exactly in accord with pete habs position it up said that generate income places so wholly contains  he's he's limited that construction but instead just told us that the accused products don't practice whatever his limitations are is what is problematic in i think legal  up and then up others like to discuss p that we we never disclaim our current understanding of generate our understanding of p t has always been the same any signal that's coming through if the data is coming through one end of it of a device and it's going out the other end unaltered unmodified and we don't consider that to be a generation however if there's any transformation there's any modification and that we do consider a modification and that is a generation and that is the same position that took in what l t adopt and what we ask this court to apply to the facts in this case