briefs regarding the determining function there is no dispute that the one crucial fact that was admitted there is no dispute about the one crucial fact that was admitted by dr smith in confirmed by v as expert and that is it yes but to put it all differently in the modern device is right back is done with respect to all caches no matter how many there are  the time of this abduction there were there were c p use that had an l one on board but it was a right through cash and then the l two would be in the secondary memory to be right back in deep we had a piece of  art fact we had a very very early circuit board that operate that way that is why the a push for a construction of first cache memory seems to be as push for construction of memory and there's even in the claim itself the preamble distinguish between secondary memory and a first cache memory there are two different two different items in the preamble about the law on substantial differences and also highlight an important difference between the parties understanding of the law he has given stray way tribune discussion of this court's precedents that the test for position that judgment should be enters a matter of law the jury instructions are irrelevant the issue is that infringement should never been allowed to go to the jury i don't either statement of law reflected in the two jury instructions hundred fifty two patten act added one twelve six two in effect overworld the supreme court's decision and halliburton three twenty nine u s one at nine supreme court have prohibited means plus functional language barrier be overbro ignore the structures in the courts to construction would be to allow purely functional claiming that is a black box for perform the function and alpacas this court granted judgment where the expert included the purely a purely functional and not backup what the claim requires is determining whether the l one has data cache in a modified state and nobody disputes that the via systems determine that because they have to if they didn't the system would crash or you'd get even worse it wouldn't crash but you'd get faulty data being used for the various applications and raids on both the one yes yes or no and that's the way that what the claim calls for is determining whether the l one is cash in the modified state and that is what the chipset does the way the via chipset is designed that that can be accomplished by checking the old two by basically checking both of them or or or the all to cache it doesn't it doesn't matter but the fact that the bio chipset does more than what the claim is required doesn't mean an satisfactory so the claim is calling for a particular determination to be made and the the nature of that required would make any yeah well the claim because it's what the claim language requires is a determination as to the status of the l one member in the reason it requires that is because if there's any thing basically that the accused shipped check of caches we can't tell which one is checking but it has to chime the line in the course of its operation and by doing that infringes your i think that's right to be honest your honor i'm having a little bit of a brain cramp and i can't remember whether of checks both or whether the l two has the of the old one but whatever it's doing it can't not determine what the status of the old ones that being true the patent but but again i think that the if they had wanted to claim argument that infringement was only possible by it even if you accept everything that mr carpenter said the reality is for the record the structures that were identified for each of the means were for the sequentially transferring means the system controller and peripheral controller and for the determining means the same to structures and in particular the logic that was shown in them for generating two signals that accomplish the snooping operation dr smith discussed each of those structures explain how the patent characterized their function the where their method of operation and the result they achieved and compared that directly to via chipsets relying so with respect to the means for  twenty four twelve fifty nine through twelve sixty eight y that implements the functionality there are figures in the patent that show the operation to behavior of the chips in very specific terms what dr smith did was he compared t eighty two thirty seven are plus so bridge now i'm going to focus most of these questions on these two particular products and then later on all ask you to explain how the technology you've seen these products relate to other products that are also what issues do the  that what i just read to you is a statement that the structure is equivalent he's saying these are the structures that i'm comparing and here is how they are equivalent and then he let me get so it's lengthy u s image that it's the same well for example on page twelve sixty two so let's just focus on these two and then we'll get to the signals coming out of the northbridge i'll ask you whether those are also i'm sorry that's  just best answer i can give you sir is that i thought what we had done in the brief in the reason i'm having trouble i don't there's not like a neat punch line the reason i'm having trouble is because he did go through specific structures and say do they function the same way and he gave that evidence or do they perform the same function they do they do it in same way and do they achieve the same result and he did it with reference to particular structures in each instance it's not i can't give you a place which wrapped up in a boat but i thought we had in the briefing given you the passages each of those steps was performed and that's why i'm having trouble just giving you a punch line like that and i apologize if that means i'm unprepared but i do believe that we addressed a very specific in the briefs and that  give exactly that just so i appreciate your time i'm going to your question by side comparison the differences if you look at the court this court's opinions and chairman are death and the cross opinion for twenty four thirty three fifteen the court this court has spent columns discussing relatively simple testimony is to show this court house shifted into this thread alexander testimony's presented and is opening brief clearly presented a compare and contrast of differences discussed differences and the figure