please the court this appeal from the is from the district court's findings that the terms ascertain an apparent signature in the continuation athens and transactional operator in claim fifteen of the six to five patent are indefinite what we do with the apparent signature of being in death net or non indefinite document is done by doing two or three things depending on how you want to count them one is to review the image of the curtesy i'm out and review the image of the legal now on the document and then secondly to ascertain in apparent signature all that done to validate the document so the validation of the document which we believe is defining the continuation pattern as determined that the document meets with the banks requirements is done through the ating the presence of a signature that is the car spawning disclosure in the pat so ascertaining an apparent signature is determining to a level of accepted level of certainty that there is present in the check a signature so it determines the presence of a signature in a check to an acceptable level of certainty to an acceptable confidence level that's a disclosure in the specification that corresponds to ascertaining an apparent come to mind fourteen through sixteen product for example one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what the acceptable confidence level is with respect to finding a signature or doing any of the other validation operations because a bank will actually set those parameters those  parameters that are are known and they're described in the pattern elsewhere as thresholds that are set by a bank ahead of time and so a bank for example a bank who that is validating the presence of a signature on a check whether there's a signature present that is beyond the scope of what the claim covers the claim is not covering the specific procedure whereby a bank will determine whether the listener signature is present the claim only requires that as long as the bank is in fact attempting to determine whether a signature is present in the bank means to claim it to the specific process that the bank uses to determine whether there is a signature present is not clean that's not required by the claim so anything as long as the bank actually has a process in place in its a t m to determine the presence of a signature it meets the claim the claim is not required to answer every question about how to enable it or you know what's happened here is that the arguments that have come in in opposition here  involve looking at what details are not present in the claim how do we determine what a signature is going to be a signature the answer is the bank sets its parameters and as long as the bank is applying whatever those parameters are to determine whether there is a signature present on the check in the bank means to cl determine the presence of a signature to an acceptable level certainly they've decided instead to focus on the word apparent signature as if that is a claim term as if an apparent signature is a type of signature and then raise issues about what it means to be a parent the fact is that an apparent signature in isolation is not a term to be construed as to be construed in the context of the entirety of the term and in that case in apparent seems or doesn't identify some undefined type of signature what it does the apparent in that in that in that claim term identifies the fact that the bank is not going to be able to determine one hundred percent whether a certain mark is or say what's covered within that element is anything that any bank to determine whether the check is signed then it meets the claim however it does that whatever technology whatever standard it wants to use for a signature whether it has to be typewritten so everything that gets to a conclusion that is satisfies that not satisfies any objective standard that satisfies any individual user or that that would infringe the cl pulp in the scope of your claim but it does have to determine yes or no there is a signature here that's right that's why this is not subjective you have a processor it's been programmed to look at to look at an image of a check and as long as it's it it does look at the image of a check and return whether or not the signature is present it infringes that's not that's objective that's an objective standard one can discover by looking at any a t m it's documentation  example in the specification of a computer that's used by user in order to perform a transaction now how do you know that the transactional operator corresponds to what school is in towers nine and ten this the specification to see whether the inventor provided any guidance as to you know how we define the transactional operator what it is that is disclosed in the a t m that corresponds to it right and why do you think to do that because it provides the keyboard for the user to operate it's a transactional operator so it includes a keyboard and then includes the logic behind the keyboard the computer itself which allows the user to t i i must admit i don't recall the specifics of what the argument was before its record or orally but it's our it's our point of view that while transactional operator is not a commonly used term that at least the patentee has provided enough information regarding this computer to indicate that it is in fact the computer in the process in the a t m including the the keyboard that allows that fulfills and that is sufficient disclosure of the transactional operator it marks that appear to be a signature there is no dispute on this point and the problem is there's no objective measure anywhere in the patent as to what makes a signature appear to be a signature capsicum agrees brief and just now an argument they said that's not part of the claim but that's an essential part of the claim because there's no way to have objective scope of the claim term ascertaining an apparent signature unless there's an objective boundary as to what it what a third party banks have made the determination as to what their acceptable confidence level acceptable pram others are so just use an example going back to the discussion if an eighty if an a t m manufacturer makes an a t m that has the technological capability of distinguishing whether or not there is a dot but no more on the signature line whether or not that infringes can't be determined from the four corners of the patent it can only be determined if you add go around in a survey of bank as to whether or not there being a dot on the signature line qualifies to that bank in their view as being an apparent signature another bank that might have a much higher threshold saying that a signature is only one where you can have recognizable character characters with certain characteristics like capital because for a machine to infringe the machine has to be capable of ascertaining an apparent signature the question is what does it mean to ascertain the parent's signature they've said it includes that wide gamut running you know it can be anywhere from definite because the first two this is just that would just be like the situation that the court addressed in the in re walter case where there is a claim term of block like in the courts and well we know that a block like term it includes things that are actual blocks but it also includes things that aren't actual blocks that appear to be blocks in so there's a spectrum there from something that's obviously not a block to something that is obviously a block and the court said using the term block like isn't doesn't provide enough definiteness because you don't know where on the spectrum all of a sudden a device begins to infringe when something is not a block but sufficiently like a block to become block like the streaker infringement wasn't provided in the context of the pattern there has to be when you're talking a both your honor but it's certainly the latter because in order to have a clear definite nouns on what it means to be appear to be a signature one who is trying to understand what the patent covers must know what kind of technology has the capability of a what is a parent signature or not so there has to be a way to know whether or not a dot on the check is going to be deemed an apparent signature or not and there's no way looking at the patent to make that determination again capps agrees with this ca determination by a third party that then bears on claims go and that's exactly what would happen here because if no bank says the dot is ascertaining an apparent signature then a machine that can identify a dot but nothing else doesn't be so again this is consistent with that in my eyes an interval licensing where the court says we can't turn over claims scope to third party determinations and it's entirely consistent with the courts that look to terms of degree that say when we're on a spectrum when we're looking at something that is not a hundred percent not zero percent there has to be for the public notice function a sense put around what is actually within the claim scope and what's without the client without the claim scope and that's just not done here and again caps it doesn't see it differently they'd agree that you can't figure out a claim scope until you figure out what a bank has determined their acceptable confidence of or their primitives are because if no bank as i said thinks that not a signature a machine that can identify the dot doesn't infringe there's required mandated particular kinds of structure or if there was a means plus function analysis which capsicums disclaimed in the reply brief and we'll accept them at their word on that but as to the first there's nothing in the plain language of transaction operator that provides any structure there's nothing in the intrinsic record of the the words transactional operator is not used anywhere were operators used by itself but it refers to an individual which is not their construction of this term and as the transaction operator they think it's the computer and this is exactly dr chatter g s analysis you can look at the keypad you could look at the computer you could look at the goods dispenser and you don't know which of one of these it is and that's where the district court said i don't know which of these various pieces of hardware actually corresponds to the to the transaction operator but even if we it were the general purpose computer if as has caps it contents for them to be able to claim that the general purpose computer is the device that operates the transaction operator that the court case was pretty clear that they have to be able to point to an algorithm that is programmed on the general purpose computer so such that becomes a special purpose computer for purposes of transactions operator no where in any of their  should understand that that term is referring back to but you are that is it that is in essence a one twelve six argument without comment one twelve six argument they want to get the benefit of getting one whole six analysis without paying the price of infringe the claim by by trying to detect the presence of a signature on a check there's no question that regardless of what standard a bank uses for finding a signature whether it requires characters or just a line or two the fact is as long as that bank has configured its a t m to look for signature infringes the claim that is definite there is no question of one of ordinary skill would be able to determine whether the bank is is taking the image of the track is looking at the signature field is looking for content and makes a determination as to whether a signature is present now it seems to me to be completely objective and mission be an issue regarding whether that claim that whether peel and actually provided a construction of this claim term the district court said that ascertaining an apparent signature is to discover the presence of a person's cursive signature in the signature field and we disagree with the cursor part because we believe the signature and we believe the evidence is that in fact a district court agreed in its opinion that sig signatures can be cursive or not but this indicated that the court was able to look through the intrinsic record to provide a construction at the time and we think that while it doesn't it is not indefinite we are saying however that this construction is on its face death and it leaves no question as to what ascertaining an apparent signature is and so it appears that if the court is able to look at the intrinsic record in the court is able to provide a clear and definite construction of the term and that would seem to go a long way to show that this is in fact a definite term thank you very much th