please the court there are two issues in this appeal and if i could get radio would like to just take a moment to sketch out where i'd like to go with my argument this morning and then you can tell me if you'd like me to go somewhere different but i i've we've met the first and central issue on this appeal as a result of straightforward application of this courts ruled that the scope of a put a prosecution disclaimer must be clear and unambiguous that is what judge sleet the disclaimer was was that we disclaim that kind of simple control and if i could but the second point that all raised a moment i hope will be the remedy for this prejudicial legal error in the and what you will see from the prosecution history is the further in this is halfway down the block quote further the claim system by virtue of the independent storage units of x the claim limitation for talking about here which own shorthand of what he has just read there he says in particular the above prosecution statement in particular cannot use a simple control or that identifies the storage unit on controller is right because that i think your argument is substantially weaker on rather you're arguing that the claim construction given to the jury is wrong even if yours is also wrong well we are possible that the disclaimer would include if that doesn't work would also cover something that doesn't send the information from the storage unit through the controller to the client as long as  that were relied on and that are the key to all of this with no one on opposite sides of the same page in the in the joint appendix one is the the language about the controller and then the other is the distinguishing  after of the definition of the subtle control and there's a new single sentence paragraph that says each storage unit that's operated independently of the other storage units so now the prosecutor and the inventor made this combination of limitations that includes a lot of mental what is that combination of limitations that's all of the limitations that are set forth in this paragraph above the definition of simple control around five thirty two how do we know that we in the preamble that's an entirely different part of the claim in which data for a file is distributed among multiple independent storage it's also silent of a client to a server three centralized interface which transaction is contrary at the very least what we have here is something that's not clear on a big us not the terminology judge graney of which you use a mistake it's certainly not a mistake at all because it's not talking about independent stor if i could move on to the question of what the remedy might be if we're skiff we are correct on this claim construct an article with regard to this limitation the evidence is clear there is no central control you can look at page twenty three zero five that's dr levy their own expert he's asked by mr you think can you remind me does the other side contest the proposition that if the central controller example where because there is an independent ground for affirming the jury verdict we did not remove and for a new trial so we've got we've got a black box worth we don't know which limitation of limitations was found to be not met by this jury we have a prejudicial legal error in the first part of the instruction with regard to the infernals limitation seems then that it's the burden on by others on my friend of the other side to show that concerning the plane in ordinary meaning that when files we object to the testimony no we did not we put in our own testimony thinking that the jury would properly get to the result of what we think it might have jury instruction the jury instruction we did propose we suggested that the plane in the ordinary meaning should control what you did that we jack well we also composed if i could be right and we also proposed an alternative construction they proposed to construct as well but but nobody actually proposed that the other side of his evidence completely ignore they treated the file as though it is a physical thing that has to reside on a single storage unit and it's not a file can and can be in segments that are distributed across the different storage units the file is the combination of those things together and if you want to see the evidence that proves that under the only plain ordinary reading of this language that we should prevail it's again dr  failed or i feel as if i just saw david copperfield performance in las vegas because in the waning moments on the in file suit issue counsel did legerdemain that with turn precedent alternative grounds for firm and in the burden is not the after leads to show that no reasonable juror could have ruled against and it is the appellant to show that there was no substantial evidence to been a prejudicial error of instruction on the other claim element and on that element none infringement is necessary as a matter of law and we have no idea if that element was the only one that the jury agreed with with you on or whether on they did on both not with your honor's as often taste with review but your verdict but here there were two grounds litigated throughout there were two grounds that were the basis of the motion and there were two grounds briefs and i'd like to turn to in piles first if i may it got very little play because the standard of review is substantial evidence not the novo review so i can understand why  to do that for there was substantial evidence before the jury to support the conclusions that media grid harmonics product does not stored data on the servers in files remember the claim language servers that's a forty two eighty seven to ninety one in response app it amended the claims in two respects it removes the language about saving servers would you agree that there is a difference between the content files which are the actual original movie files and the files that are contemplated by the in files limitation absolutely you're reading it correctly in second avenue added the requirement that the segments be stored in files on the storage unit that put the record forty three ten fifteen nineteen twenty seven and twenty two seventy eight slices and that's why the examiner rejected claims so to get around that if you look at the red line in the prosecution history they marked out segments and they put in bottles so that that was enough to get them past the family a marketing document correct right and is that just incorrect it was it was marketing talk that the jury i know so much every once in a while marketing is accurate so i question what you must have had a different asked about and maybe you can just clear this up it seems to me there's one possible application of the term file and that's going to the content file with the client would recognize it as a file and then there's another possibility namely that the set of storage units organizes its memory in something that it regards as files  i when i looked up the testimony that your brief cited for your witness having said no files no files it was all about how the storage units your content services are what they're called yes content servers don't recognize the content file that is the one that the client would understand as a file i did not see anything cited for the idea that your content servers are don't organize what they do in it's own filing system and you already have i think off what i understand the question you're right that there was ample testimony from both sides that the content servers to not store the data the files they stored in slices or segments which are the same thing the content files that you're talking about that could be a video clip of a kid's graduation or an audio clip those are on the c that's not what goes on the content server then they share the work file but at the totally different thing and the media great content servers don't know anything about what that file is right so what if if if each storage unit has its own filing system and it calls slices a file why is it that when you read that claim language it says the data is stored on the plurality of storage units in files does that simply mean as i think i just gradually came to believe and you can correct me that this whole dispute is about whether what has to be in one of those files more than one slice  plus redundancy not whether the thing is stored in files no your honor both both assumptions in your question respectfully urt contradicted by the record the prosecution history it is not the case that the content servers arrange things in files or have a file system the content director and media grid is the central controller that assigns the slices to the different conte aside the business about multiple yes although they put it aside and that's at the end of the word counts for something it is a plurality it is not a singularity i'm what i'm trying to do is understand whether as your read brief argues there is you you have a free standing contention that there is no storage of anything in files in your content servers correct where is the testimony for that if this is where i want to make sure we at least understand each other it seems to me that what this says is that content files doesn't appear as a file on the storage unit it does not say that the contents servers aren't storing their slices in their own files but the next quote that i want to read to you does a twenty three eighteen dr levy test the content services do not store data in files have no knowledge of content files and on only slices and guess who agreed dr g eight nine teams sixty four quote now you agree sir that the content servers are a storage unit for st slices correct answer that's right yes dr g went on to say he thought that satisfied the m files requirement and that's why god created the jury they have the evidence from both sides and they decided let me turn briefly to independents or sliced up my opponent lead to read instruction order and then when judge toronto asked him about the prostitution disclaimer he read from that but both times he omitted the process inside the crackerjack in the record page forty three eighteen having had the application rejected by the examiner transaction requests for multiple clients to multiple servers in bowl a client a centralized interface twenty four that provide access to a server and receive from th old simon of a client to a server through a centralized interface for a transaction is contrary to the claim limitation noted above i read that without that type of so let's say that i understand your argument ok but what about climb nineteen and in your brief on page forty you say there is a significant difference between the past tense central database and the three zero nine patent claim nineteen and the active central order to obtain approval of the patents you can just ignore that disclaimer so your view is that that later claim then it's in a continuation that that claim which then later later claims  later does in fact claim exactly what you contend a disclaimer there's no way that they can do that there's no public notice at all that that's what's been claimed even though it's plain in the language of the claim itself but but the claim would have been approved that's why the as making a distinction about the number of servers that the client will deal with they read it as saying both says we give you one storage system so they read that the paragraph that he doesn't want to read out to you they read that as only apply because all to distinguish paul because it did not have a distributed storage system if you look at the pat age thirty four thirty two one lines sixty one to sixty five in the patent eight thirty four thirty five at seven fifteen to twenty four that's the bold patent and it thank you very much your honor to start with begin files limitation i'm i find it rather surprising that we're here talking about the hill yet when the question is whether there was substantial evidence on the part of the ordinary meaning of the language that was presented to the jury the hellion wasn't part of the play in the ordinary meaning language it wasn't part of the trial evidence in this regard the question is where is their votes explicit your what's your view about what the evidence showed and what was in in dispute about that let's call it the two possible locations of the word file whether it's the storage system for filing say that they do not have evidence from which a jury could take this on construed claim language and say now this file system on this to ask me whether there's evidence that will support or that the evidence is clear but it will support our claim of forgery and oh well on this limitation what i'm asking i guess some of is there anything alternative about the files in storage system files here being something that the storage system views as a file not what the the content of what the client would honestly do this i'm standing here just toronto i don't know the answer that question the answer i would get used to fall one of which is to look at the testimony that dr levy gave where he says there is a content file or client file shown here with the segments numbered one through five this is a twenty three twenty seven written description of this happened to get that probably shouldn't be at issue here on sufficiency but a file is not a physical thing that's located in one place it is it is across servers and if you look at the written description of a thirty six forty two column thirteen