these are actually the underlying statement of facts in support of our motion for summary judgment that's one place we can find the evidence summarized as the crow concerned so there are claim charts that five i'm not sure whether the claim charts themselves are on the record however we do have a quote referencing those claim charts and stating that and it had prepared an element by element analysis over the claims and a comparison to the methods and do judge it in fact we have as i said the response the statement of facts in support of summary judgment that summarizes all of the features that we claim to satisfy the various claim limitations  the court below said i was never called upon to determine whether a particular system or use infringed the only thing i was ever called upon to determine  it says the quote was never called upon to determine definitively whether anyone had directly infringed our initial ruling if they were defendants on the claim of vicarious liability was based not on the proposition that nominated for the patents but rather the defendants were not involved in determining what software systems independent court reporters used in other words the quit wasn't called upon to say that for example live no is used in a particular system offered for sale by the defendants lack one or more the claim limitations the only thing the court was required to do was asked to do by the police below was determined given was on their website the other information they disseminated whether that was sufficient to constitute an offer of sale of something that could be the basis of an underlying itself that they had stopped doing that but there was the offer for sale of a method in this case the court reporting that the the apple e's in their court reporting independent contractors were providing for the attorneys  was missing that was never anything the district court found and isn't in our opinion the proper subject of of these of the scope of the appeal it's simply given what the different what the a police did in their advertisements was that two problems that we find with the invalidity decision of the court on the various claims but first is that either after constrain the claims himself or after receiving the a parties agreed to construction of claim limitations the district court then ignored instructions and evaluating the validity of certain claims we can start with claim seven of the three nine five patent which the district court construed as covering the capability to conduct searches on a real time transcript  generated later in finding this claim was anticipated the district court stated that it says that a system that would permit further searches into the portion of the transcript generated after the use after the user entered search mode certainly would have been more useful but that is not what claim seven required so the prior art indisputably required leaving the real time transcript to conduct searches that's the only way that the district court could find a claim seven of the three nine five patent whereas in fact anticipated was to ignore its original construction of this claim which required searching the real time transcript and that was the construction that engage relied upon and marshalling its evidence for trial now for several of the subject claims requiring synchronization read before regarding the usefulness of a system that would allow you to search going forward would be useful but that's not what claim seven requires indicates the district court very clearly believes that claim seven didn't require searching the realtime transcript in other words it was that one left the real time mode and went into the search mode basically being able to search what was ever in the memory buffer up to that point but if there was any additional testimony that came in while the search was being conducted that was not part of the tex so the district court very clearly determine after having said that claim seven require searching the real time transcript but that wasn't required any more than the prior art which did allow you to do that anticipated the claim we also have these other as i mentioned about synchronization of text video and audio signals now the apple lease proposed and the parties ultimately agreed that these claims as properly construed require that the audio and video signals be played back during the proceeding which meant that there had to be some synchronization in real time between the audio and video on the one hand of the text on the other however in finding these claims anticipated after trial the district court stated those claims did not require the real time circulars ation of audio i'm sorry did not require real time feeds of the video and audio signals to the attorney terminal the only way again for the district court to have found this claim anticipated was to disregard the agreed to construction of the parties and that was the construction once again that and get relied upon and marshalling its evidence on the issue of validity finally the district court held the claims one in three of the one eight six patent or fatally indefinite because the specification of the pedophiles to disclose structure court corresponded to an analysis means  the parties agreed to use the at police construction the construction once again of this claim limitation and the apple e specified the cat system performs the subject analysis which is what is taught in the specification the district would simply ignore this agreed to construction  finding that these claims were fatally indefinite and briefly on the issue of novelty your honour's one another error that the judge committed with regard to a variety of claims is simply filling in the blanks in the prior art in other words ignoring the gaps that when the prior art is compared to the claims if we look at claims twenty six through twenty eight of the nine five two patent the stat with these dealt with the synchronization of audio video and text as well and the could be construed these claims as requiring a system that converts spoken words to text that is transmitted to user computers and he pointed out to the judge below that the app police were relying on prior art that related to closed captioning broadcast to a television and a television as  computer the district that said however that we find the distinction between a television screen and a computer screen immaterial to the substance of the patent in short your honour's the fact there was a distinction at all the clu there was no commercial half said anything that included the claiming tension we freely met and that's what this case the bout that we offer real time that reporting an gate that might have a patent on real time court reporting but that has been s stops growing but he could search anything including even after the transcripts stop strep spread and if you look at the at the language of the church of the claim claim seventy three ninety five in phoenix where there were ten attorney terminals he stated that when one attorney stop scribbling to search the terminals continue with the transcripts going down that was what was required to anticipate these may please the court two very quick points first of all if we look at page eight forty four on the issue of obviousness there is a footnote from the court and it says in addition certain of the argument headings in the defendant's opening post trial brief reference possible grounds for invalidity the defendants do not actually address primarily obviousness again the clerk deems these arguments forfeited the court's correct some of these arguments of the defendants are putting forward and the judge relied upon may in fact have been very good obviousness arguments and get doesn't agree but the point is that obviousness was not an argument maintained by the defendants below and it should not have been the decision of the court under the guise of an anticipation finding with regard to the claim charts i apologize for not having these earlier if we turn to page eighty six twenty we see an example of the claim chart that judge dyke was asking about and this is in the apple e's response a statement of facts to engage smoke in for summary judgment and there is a shot comparing claim for of the seven eight seven pad to the accused reporting systems on the right hand side are the corresponding features in the accused system with some ations to among other things deposition testimony the admissibility of which presumably in a summ judgment context is beyond dispute and then mr nissen said that they contradicted this motion for summary judgment on the grounds that limitations are missing and if we look at the response we see in the first two paragraphs the claim that this is not admissible evidence and in the third paragraph we also have this suggestion this is admissible hearsay finally in the first paragraph by paragraph it says that there is no evidence that any independent corporate or actually used any of these features so again  epperly never challenge the absence of a limitation or limitations from the asserted claims as the basis for a non infringement defense they simply inconsistently asked the court to find which it did