the claim requires an analyzer server for detecting structures in the data and for linking actions to the detected structure so what we need is an analyzer server for linking and detecting but as this court held in the motorola case considering the exact same patent claim analyzer server must be separate from the client application that is sending the data to the server and the exact words that slip opinion twenty three in apple against motorola is that the specification requires an analyzer server that is separate from the application of the server was not construed in this case was that's correct your honor what happened it was there were but a little motorola recall that mark you construed analyzer server as quote a server routine separate from a client that receives that that receives data having structures from the client and in fact you pointed at about twenty three to the figure one in the patent which has a box for the application box one six seven and a batts for the server that's one six five and you said the specification describes the analyzer server and the application which it serves as separate structures so i want to focus on separateness and show why very simply there is no separateness on the record here and therefore analyzer server  getting to what is a clickable for detecting i wonder if i could start with linking with doesn't involve the shared library at all and i start with linking and then address what happens with the shared library because it sure magri if there's an answer to your question your honor but what may not have been entirely clear in the briefing but i want to make utterly clear to you is that if we focus just on linkage we don't need to get to shared libraries and what i'd like to do is go back to apple's experts admissions about the linking functions the linking functions need to be in the server not in the application but we have two moments in time before and after this court's motorola construction we have the moment in time where first apple's expert dr mallory comes and he says oh linking code i'll tell you what the linking code is in messenger and browser and this is it eight ten eight five seven ten eight five nine and ten eight six three in the record and he says there are three code that code is in the application that's why your honor because you haven't told him yet that you reject his construction you haven't told him yet that he can't just say the server can be any routine remember apple's pre motorola construction of six or seven what they said an analyzer server should be construed as a program routine any program routine that receives data and you said no it can't be any program routine it has to be a program routine that is separate from the client so dr mary comes back and if you look at nothing else in the record your honors please look at pages eighty thirteen own three three eight thirteen zero three four because that's what that remembering says about the linking code when he comes back and here's what he says about linking code he says at ten thirteen zero three three lines eight and twenty well the code that does the linking it's still those three routines i told you about earlier it's at home contact menu it's schilling's context menu and it's on create context menu and he still says those three routines are in the client you want to look at a thirteen zero three three line ten and a thirteen zero three four line eighteen he says those three routines that do the linking are in the client or from the quiet they're in browser or they're in messenger and now comes the key moment your honor here's where apple is trying to end around this court's construction of an advisor server as being separate from a client he says oh they're in the client and they're from the client those three linking code is entirely and matter at side the shared libraries because the apple admits it to link you need code that's in the application that you're under thank you for your patience and i do want to get to shared libraries and say why we a separate program in the sense that it's not routinely run that's part of the client program but is understood in apple's expert also admitted that it's not run as a stand alone program that's must run as a standalone program separate from the client if the client calls up the program and incorporates it for purposes of performing winking and detecting it is not an analyzer server and here's why the current claim just to go back to the language of the claim the claim requires a server routine separate from a client that receives data having structures for the guy that's your construction i'm sorry i want to go back to the claim which claim one requires an analyzer server for detecting and linking well it has access to the code and it goes to the code where it is and uses it there and it does that each time that it accesses the code will be at the beginning of that sentence that is the subject of the verb uses is the application  import so there i am in messenger there i am in browser and i say import the link of five files i need or import the other files i need to do the detecting but your honor if i could use a humble real world analogy what your construction wants is the fall if i have to perform a calculation at you want me to send the equation to the reference librarian and have her calculate it for me and send it back that's why you said at slip up twenty three that the application in box one six seven is calling on the program the separate structure and once it's five so i send my count equation to the reference library and i say please calculate it and send it back to me that's your construction but what testified here to your honor is i i go to the library to use my humble analogy and i take a book out and i import it's not a gin to my head and i perform the calculation myself so i think once you look focus on the key language and claim one that it is an analyzer server for detecting and linking and once you look at mary's admission that it is the application that is using the shared library code to perform detecting linking and you add that your honor to the key science an exam well as it is running it is not running as a standalone program to answer your question more succinctly separate means that the analyzer server has to be separately independently sufficiently as a standalone district here so the evidence was partly inventer testimony but the investor metra testimony shows why it's indefinite because the inventor's them selves contradict each other and we don't dispute that the testimony  we did give you the opportunity to invalidate the patent but worse than the are you suppose hypothetically we were to agree that there was no infringement of these condoms do we need to reach the issue you do not your honor because you could affirm the judgement here without reaching out and we think the case for not infringement the substantial evidence supporting the judgment of an infringement is overwhelming and or we think it's a legal question we think that obviousness is a legal question and the ultimate conclusion is one that you can review de novo and therefore the question of whether the secondary considerations are strong enough to overwhelm a strong case of obviousness is a question that you can arrive at without deference to the district court but with respect we think second it's a legal question whether plays on teaches a wet and i think that it's obvious that's let not for several reasons your honor first that there was no notice of the seventy one patent before the six so they're at so you know the any any observations about general trying to unlock is not relevant to the commercial second very relevant secondary civil rights of men at most it's extraordinarily weak because it's too general but let me give you two other key points about commercial success if i could apple doesn't practice this patent in its new operating system  more generally so your honor with respect to copying evidence even if i concede that copying a feature we don't concede that we copy preachers but even if that were relevant relevant to this inquiry it's too soon and it's not relevant to this claim feature in the e it's a way you have to look at the secondary and issue which we think are very weak and where it against the case for obviousness which we think is very strong and we think that coming out on that as a matter of law you should find the seven to one invalid as obvious and one last factor it is worth noting although obviously we don't have to defer to the other nations of the world or of the other jurisdictions of the world who have considered the seven to one patent or its foreign equivalent in light of these that for the once the same argument there your honor and again i am asking you to please consider secondary considerations in relationship to the strength of the obviousness case as a matter of law there may be implicit factual findings but you have the ultimate decision about whether about how to weigh them on the one seven to your honor we think there's a again a very strong case for obviousness we think robinson is almost a single reference obviousness reference because it disposes every element of auto correct except for one thing the text being typed in the first area and we think it was well known in the art and x or ga mixes it is an example of a reference that supplies the idea that when you're correcting a word you might want to see the purge where you're typing it before you corrected apple's commercial success is not in this record and there is no proof again of a nexus between commercial success and claim eighteen there was only evidence about commercial success and popularity of the i phone generally so with respect we don't see any case at all is entered there's still the issue of ongoing world peace from the date of the with your judgement up until the date of the injunction right that would be that would be correct rather or who are but that could be handled also based supplemental damages which haven't been resolved either what i guess here's what i'd like to take one step back we think that it was incorrect to issue the ongoing royalties at the point the district court did because the district were actress section once apple sought a review of the denial be well your honor there's a there's a number of things still pending before the district court so first i don't want this court reversed the denial of the injunction and remanded for further proceedings on the injunction we now can see that any interaction  that it remains to be determined what's also remains is when this court reversed the trade dress judgment on certain products those products are also also subject to design patent and utility pat relief they sought an injunction they didn't seek ongoing royalties after the trial when they saw the injunction and when they appealed the injunction to this court the district court had no jurisdiction and they by winning their right on going royalties they can't come now and say was no construction of these terms during the course of the trial before the last day once you rendered your motorola decision the jury was twice instructed on the meaning of the analyzer server and went to the action it was actually given the instruction in writing before the evidence was resume and it was charged at the so the question is was there substantial evidence to support the furious determination and let me take them in the order is that to some extent  requirement that if beast stand alone the requirement is that it be a separate routine and there is nothing in the specification nor the struggle along with the running supper it's a routine that is separate but routines don't from the client and that's what the claim construction is we agree actually that it has to be run separately from the client it's a routine that run separately and that's  d libraries are separate at thirteen zero three five and he said they were developed independently that they're stored in different parts of memory that there is only one copy of the shared library code and the applications go to that code when they want to use it that to a thirteen zero three five and to court and he says and they use it there that's specifically what he said part of memory and all those applications go to the shared library code in one place that exists in the computer memory hardware to use it so it's definitely separate yes stored separately and not interpretation of the code but to put this in context there was during the trial before the moral decision test point about why this claim was in friends and it's important to remember that for nine of the eleven elements there was no came down that your honor referred to he came back and said same source code here are the routines that actually perform the functions and i want to get the linking function because samsung has completely confused two different concepts that have nothing to do with what document is it on this is complicated and so on let me finish on the separate one this is a circumstance where on a substantial evidence question the there's nothing in the claimed her patient says it has to be a stand alone it says it has to be a separate routine and if you're honest the question is whether it has to be a standalone program or whether it can be rushed or of the client program i guess i actually think  hundred two things the question is is it a separate routine which is what this fourth claim interpretation requires the jury was destructed that it needed to be a separate  see that there is a reference to routines and then analyze your server it is one of many routines if you look at the paragraph immediately preceding analyzer server and one thousand actions it says a storage information including programmers teams the idea that each one of those program routines would have to run as a standalone is inconsistent with what's in the specification the very program routines and there are many in a specification don't want independently in the abstract they run as part of a series of functions and in this particular circumstance what happens is the the linking action is to specify connection to specify connection occurs after the analyzer server code has done its work and part and it basically says what that data is and it becomes what's called an intent object and dr mary described this in detail once the intent object it identifies the class and the specific data so the class could be your telephone number and the specific date of the telephone number it bench next to something called start active that is specify connection that's got nothing to do with the glucose at all and you have to create a specified connection that then cause the c p u to do something and that's exactly what happens in dr mary took the jury through exactly the process i've just described here on earth that basically demonstrates how the separate analyzer server function performs an hour a specified connection was created as a result of that and how that actually then is once the in can object is call and the data is then a fight and the class of data set then a five there is a specific connection made to start activity and the reason you know it's more than association is depending but you can satisfy the general and specific and that's exactly what happened here in fact at the trial and i want to missed all of them mention this suggesting that dr mary changed his position actually the he walked through it and said yes it satisfies the general but it also satisfies the specific and at the end of the date of questionnaires i think there are two going to judge your honour's questions which are does the claim that there's one copy of the code it's when the client wants to use it it's used at the analyzer server and once it's used there is the creation of a specified action which jury heard both experts twice the jury saw the devices the jury had the source code the jury had the routines and critically important it had the explanation from apple's expert as to why he was crap that there's only one copy of the code it's used at the analyzer server and it's because it would defeat to have multiple copies of the code would require the use of space that's at a premium before us is that this is in a different location it's got a different address and i'm not to me i'm not i'm not convinced yet that that's separate from the fact that you have a different address or different location and and even pick argument j m well was it sends that day that it has that it is singing but doesn't know what it is to the separate analyzer server which is physically separate independently develop different location one copy of the code and  that's exactly what's going on here if you would be taking the claim interpretation that was given the moral code motorola case and reinterpreting to require something more  that wouldn't actually would make any sense in the context of the specification and it certainly would make any context sense in the context of the evidence no one suggesting that the analyzer server can start operating without something happening at the client the big fight was this does this was the big fight does the quote from the analyzer server get copied and become part of the client where it's rough the discussion you have to hear is the disagreement the two experts have so we have one of two issues either the court's thanks if there is appropriate to have a new claim constructions actually more specific and testimony went to the features the conduit study went to the features the survey results went to the seats that copying evidence we're not talking about and i don't think there's a feature and copying the words of the path the features are going to come out almost by definition before the pattern emerges copying a feature meaning which you have understood what about what's the evidence of comment about whether we practice precisely the claims that were certain i think the court knows that there was a limitation on the number of claims that could be adjudicated to ten and that included the ones that you could claim you practice sorrow in one case while we didn't read anyone it's ever made the argument that if we meet geoff get your pay your arguments with respect to teaching the way for example in the seven twenty one that you were arguing that secondary considerations by themselves in the face of a strong prime aphasia case of state i don't consider her brief i will say to you here that i think that the answer is it does and the jury would was intitled to conclude that it did i mean these are circumstances not where there are some version is jarring here's what we're going to do and they adopted this feature which was found to in france their stuffing in this court's law that says in order to there be evidence of copying you have to show that someone testimony or any document that said it was important for us well if you have if you have a document from samsung but you're not claiming that there's a specific reference to the importance of their customs well i think what i along with the finger that's doing the sliding that's what's missing from that and then and then in the looking to place on that's where the visual depiction comes from right so and i think judge called described it as there was interpretations on both sides the jury heard testimony from both experts as to how wonderful for a very skilled in the art would interpret this reference  i think the best i can say is that it was the jury question of what their teachers away or not you had two experts who got on the stand and looked at the language that sliders and now the question is if you have this if you have place not is there the motivation to compain and just to remind the court when judge coke considered this on so many injunction she said you know it's not enough to say one thing if we were describing we were discussing this in the abstract in the first instance but this is a situation where the jury heard about a place on the jury heard about a new node which actually is missing more i think than is described by samson because without the unlike image you can't do three parts of the claim and then the question becomes this given that the jury heard from both experts  given that their heard about this not given they have heard the only suggestion of a motivation combined would be that it would be natural to do so but nothing more specific and given that they heard all the secondary considerations substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict and the answer is yes can you look to the to the questions i asked regarding us and here is i think an answer of your honor if the court consider recognize it and to a critically important fact you can't be put there asking you to find a term and definite when they're experts said it's well recognized in the field well understood in the field implement recognized would be generally or were generally be recognized by the computer scientists and one of skill in the art as rules of good not that you'd not consist solely of constraint satisfaction parameters and therefore  about how the term was used in the past and how it had been used in the file history how it was staying which from a constraint satisfaction parameter this just saying that it's anything in any technique other the loop constraints mean it's not  infringement you do not see the need or should pursue the question of indefiniteness add to that how much that is correct your honor we think you can affirm the judgment of non infringement and not reach judge i pointed out that is the key question and i was astonished to hear mr lee say that analyzer server is operating separately when running or executing the detecting and linking functions because there is no evidence of that the key question is not whether at the show lab or a code is separate when it's stored it's not whether it's separate when it's placed in memory the question is is an analyzer server separate when it is detecting and linking that's what this court's claim construction was in motor o and there is no evidence that it separate when it's doing the detecting and linking and documentaries important statement at  at thirteen zero three six and seven this is not say that the library is acting separately so my friend mr lee point of view your honour's to the top of thirteen zero three seven and to the sentence from mary it has access to the code and uses it there but the it in that sentence is the messenger and browser application if the application is using the shared library code the shared library detecting independently on its own and that's where your construction i thought your honor was quite right that the testimony by dr merrick about the shared library code being separate w not about it being separate when it is running it can't run on it's own because it can't run as a standalone that's that's mary's other mission it cannot run as a standalone code and it isn't ever running alone when it's doing the detecting and ranking and because not running alone there is no separate analyzer server and that's enough to decide the case but i gave you a second dispositive ground for why we went on six for seven and i'm afraid mr lee created quite a bit of confusion about it so i want to go and see if i can say it one more time very simply this is my glucose and it has nothing to do with specify connection your construction gave the two important readings of the plant analyzer server has to perform the linking separately from the application and that's what i was talking about and also you also said that the linked action has to be through a specified connection but i wasn't talking about that when i talk to you about luca when i'm asking you to do is go back and look at merrily pre ten eight five seven ten eight five nine and ten eight six three and you'll see the three routines that do the linking twenty four hours then you go to thirteen zero three three thirteen zero three four after shared libraries because they're not operating standalone but we think we really even without getting to shared libraries because the linking code is in the clash and anything that's in the client cannot be an analyzer server or a server routine because it is not separate from the client i'm not arguing anything about what our expert said mr lee tried to put this back into a battle of the experts i'm relying solely on dr mary apple's expert in his admissions and that's all there there is no separate analyzer server that is performing the linking and there are second no separate analyzer server that's performing that the check big because the application is imploding oring corporate ingle the code the library code into it in order to do that detect analyzer server is not matt and the six or seven judgment should be reversed and i'm sorry to belabor it but i just thought it was very important to clarify that we when on allies or server without getting to specify connection you're on a job training with respect to your questions about specified connection i couldn't agree more with you that what apple is doing here is going back to its premotor all of the construction of associating but i leave to the griefs the x explanation of why we think linking means a joining that's what you said  and in the world of mobile phones with android that open platform you don't have a linking enjoining between the user selecting an action and the kettle being made or the phone number being stored in us to go through that whole long process that mr li told you about about intent objects populated start activity which then asks for a world of applications that microform the caller store the address that is not linking are joining so we think we went on that specify connection too but i'll leave it to the brief to explain here on around correct that we're not disputing the instruction but we are strong strenuously disputing that any reasonable juror could find in french meant under this court's instruction going to construction as instructed to the jury so he was no substantial and the dispute on legal and teaching a way we would respect is some respect really suggest as a legal question your honor i think the answer the question does plays a teacher way is a legal question you can answer you looked at the page you cited the page where place not just talks about that says that something has advantages but you know that it talks about a proof of something is preferred it has advantages but it's not always preferred because there might be other ways of doing it right me two things the reference points do that's not teaching a way honor we don't think you need to reach it but if you reach it just because an expert can construe the claim does not satisfy nautilus it has to have boundaries and i didn't hear any boundaries in mr lee's account and at i think i have nothing more to say or one of the key thing is we ask that you reverse on six four seven because under your claim construction that you can't find infringement no separate mass between the analyzer server of the server routines and their performance of detecting and linking functions and please focus on the detecting linking is being done and there is not thank you