is to jump ahead and start the process with examples in the specification for the prosecution history or in some cases extrinsic evidence while on counting the clients so let me repeat that the district court in effect took out a can and inserted entirely new steps into the claims the steps are not present in the claim wording and are not otherwise required  the prosecution history the district court also appeared in accepting subject matter jurisdiction in the first place and i will speak to that if i have sufficient time will let me ask about it what i can to get first point you have to be feuding with the logical painful the logical table is simply a representation or a definition that existed virtually that's what a lot that's what logical reasons to the user it appears as if the user is relational database is structured in one way through tables the object oriented application has a different structure to it so there they don't necessarily readily speak to one another when the logical table does your relational schema which is the structure of the database directly into the process and creates a relational schema object that's why the compilation scheme objects there are objects that the relational database is working on it into already normal tables or if you look at the background of the invention iran or in column one right there it says starting about on twenty five twenty six it talks about and we have our arguments as to why they just report here with respect to the various attachments so yes i do agree that you still need to conclude our arguments are correct well and of course since they made the argument of as i understand it correctly most so really the only time normalization is not necessary is when the tables are already normalized when every time it is necessary that was somehow circular but i think we'll understand what i'm saying it's it's necessary in the claim every time a tax really necessary in practice is and i think that would mentioned and they go into it there's no reference to logical table why would you ever get my position is the most important thing i think we can all agree that some reinvention abstract everywhere right to do the most important thing how could you have been imbibing describe in figure one that's talking about the invention itself that doesn't even introduce the concept of logical table into a four column place it doesn't make any sense that people say what they ended up focusing on was the logical table which is record legitimately could have been brought do you think that if there is absolutely no evidence anywhere in any record for anybody of intent from z d net for example that it would be fair to say a claim for intent considered for determining whether jurisdiction exists so you're talking about the counterclaim which was compulsory you know what one explaining to you is if if it is a question of whether something could happen to time a and it happened in time b that is probably due to the fact that it could ha element for contributory infringement i see no similar thing here it seems to me you're alleging nothing more than they do that our customers want our products using plain charts referring to add on net therefore we could made or adapted for use to infringe the task because i don't see that evidence anywhere but that existed in areas quite clearly just typed in his majority opinion explained so where is the evidence in this claim char starts by saying there is a normal life with the dot net mr ryan has lots of use beyond simply using to create an interface that will allow for object oriented to communicate with relational database correct i don't especially in a massive operating system or whatever else then yes and maybe there's never jurisdiction i don't think that's why the policy around today gets lost here's my problem my problem is that i think i don't see you having any evidence in the record that i don't see any basis upon which you want to be shaking your business i mean that's the problem the problem is microsoft had to leave a legally adverse interest exists and i don't see any basis for microsoft to have any fear that it was going to be sued by  suppliers applied the product and it goes to many customers and they all get the same claim charge the implication is by selling the product to all those people that they're reducing infringement and that product is substantially designed for  the supplier rather than letting you sue dozens and dozens of customers and avoid the person that you're ultimately after each case as i understand it and the chances that we understand that if you can sue a hundred mom and pop shops and threaten them with very expensive litigation you're going to get a lot of settlements  and and find yourself in a lucrative patent milking business why don't you bring it right to the head and sue microsoft right up front because no probably contests yet he says that what's going on here is not what  going on here how do we know that these were know why didn't you bring microsoft in if you if you don't want that inference to be drawn when you look at the contracts for the focus was on the products in the that data transfer representative said to microsoft we're not interested in suing you this is a matter of a fish and see why don't we have one suit against the supplier rather than hundreds of suits against the users because there's that saying in which you get the russian novel every happy family is happy and it's the same way every sad sick family so that it a different way every one of those defendants is eye a step to find out whether there was going to be the liability that judge approach refers to we weren't willfully blind i don't think there is any didn't see the microsoft code being implicated that was a study about the source code that was the state that was and what he said was what is being implicated there are the products that are being held by the defendants now is not introduced in common for it is introduced in column one and the invention is about using logical tables from the end it can start from the normalization process b