source so i or so all such and such type of function that that would be an example of phones and devices i have and i think i am coming i see them jumping around here but if it relates to the argument that i would make about pin the i don't think i have a question about that yeah i don't think pin that is a codes i did so i don't think pin should be read into claims i don't think that's the court by this language specific to a mobile device so there has to be a code that is relates to the information the device from which information is being sought so in other words there would need to be a code from a bank account there would need to be a co in context with access to a service not an sr mobile device and i think the course claim construction specific to a mobile device doesn't make much sense when plugged into claim twenty how the second point i'd like to make is of one that is now over and one that is broader that's a claim construction and to encompass both and i don't believe that the district  the word invention and used the word pin but if you look at the substance of what he's saying is the distinction between the prior art and the and the invention it's the tracks it's even if it's pre applications sources of people that want to get them ok location of your mobile phone and you might want to have that mobile phone give the location of the to some sources and not others and in the prior what you did if you if to do with whether or not they accept or deny limitation is found in that the prior art that was relied upon for the invalidity determination well i think i think it has to do with both it has to do with the construction because i right that that's correct if that was a question i'm sorry i didn't understand it the panic it's been years to convention with pre authorization that's absolutely correct but it's not being used to distinguish the invention because can comes from the pearl the concept of the pin come invention in the prosecution history you're barred from picking up what you believe in our case to say even if you distinguish it based on a feature that was in the priority you're still more but i guess my argument is that he's not distinguish it based on the you runs through eight fifty the other questions on yes you may need the code of the mobile device for pre authorization five just like we talked about you need a second pre authorization piece in order to be able to do both right  that eighteen d does and accept or deny of pre authorized even under their theory of creed authorized individuals that's why this court does not need to reach the construction of pre authorized because the jury's decision c quote that's right on point here on page ten thirty four which is even if the district court erred in its construction and parts of the construction of the result the jury reached would not change and that court we want to not consider that is important because each element is necessary well what's what what's your response to their argument that well you know this isn't really a fair comparison because there pre authorized have been appropriately construed the whole case would have been presented differently absolve you of your responsibilities to put on evidence for the other elements and that's what we're saying they failed to do here they didn't like the construction of the authorized we all know about but that doesn't mean that they get to go to trial could on insufficient evidence as to the pre authorized to make the cell phone you know create some really loud noise maybe your pre authorized with the cell phone lined up but that doesn't change the scope of creed authorized especially when this interview told the public what the invention it you're supposed to come and know your case and i have to be able to answer the question i think i do but i don't think i mean i i realize that but the point here is that we intended to present a case at different judgment precluded us from offering evidence at the gateway and the evidence that we believe was prejudice critically prejudicial and the prejudicial came from excluding under that construction but if the jury was compelled to find against you on the second issue that is the second check then it is harmless error no because that evidence as to what that second check would have been if the construction was incorrect that claim construction of pre authorized resulted in the preclusion well putting aside the claim construction clincher of argued to the district court that she shouldn't preclude it because what she's affectively doing is precluding you showing that that second check regardless of what pre authorized meant as it relates to the first check