talks about the one click or a click or some manual so what else is the truck work to do other than say this is everything that's disclosed all the embodiments plus the president mentioned described this way what else  off the screen and the old arc you might work with starts to move you might click at the wrong time and get the wrong price wasn't that the whole idea of having a static actually there are several problems with residents a little different than that if i can explain the plot the pa focuses on figure two as an example of the prior in figure two every time the market changes the price levels in the best the best assholes change every time so ever so if a trader is trading in the markets going up and down centering is not within the scope of the claimed invention no actually i think the where clause showed that our construction has to be right the where clause is don't say in there that that always has to be the case whe basically that this needs to be a time when the price levels don't change positions when the market changes which is true of all of the accused products in figure two that is never true every time the market changes the price levels change every single independent claim i believe and the patents have that wherein a static display or prices does not move now i suppose the trial judge might have said that language is already in the claims i don't need to include it in the definition of static sleep because it's already there but how does that help you when every single claim has it anyway while the where clause does not say all the places it will always do not move that's not in it that's not you claim for the specifications of an example of what you're talking about when as i said every i believe correct every independent claim has that where in there which means it all to translate from the all the deep end  court reverse basing its judgement largely on that point well i don't understand that claim differentiation argument as being the same kind of claim differentiation addressed in philips or in general and or an example now is that they've then specifically defined static and we all understand you can define a black to be white and they do in this case they define a binary a unitary term as you say  with a broader meaning they say it doesn't normally change unless there's a recent or in command received what your order and that suggest going to be received a centering command and then ourselves well what kind of a centering command because it's in the passive voice and doesn't tell us and we find out that they have dependent claims that say it can be manual so evidently the independent call for require any form of research that way the core and refined in its explicit definition static normally does not move unless they reach centering you still not helping because yes there's going to be any input is it going to be manual yes one dependent claim tells us it's going to be manual then what is broader than that could it be automatic your honor i don't claim language the static display of prices does not move in response to a change in the inside more can i get it was a don't remember the would that make which occurs in the warin causes well has been defined in a way  says it's static but it moves when you receive a reset ring command and they can do that that's the rule lexicographer you can read redefine block to be white you can define static can say except when it moves and they did now how does it move it's interesting you're out of it although they have that definition of specification that's not the construction they asked for in the district court and i think the reason they didn't ask for that construction in the district court is because when you look at the patent in its entirety and some of these portions were referenced by judge clark again and again it talks about the body mincer manual it describes the president vention as allowing for manual recenter in the purpose of the invention is to prevent order entry errors that can be going to help me with my problem that the claims suggest a broader meaning in the independent claims because there's a dependent which recites manual so what is broader than man your honor again the independent claim recites a static display of prices and it goes on to say that display does first of all your order the definition they've given out we think it implicitly talks about measurable re century the definition was upon receipt of a command if you look at those three content of claims one talks about receipt of a command from a think so your honor because if you look at the letter there's another difference in the language but to the don't say from a user use the word receipt where is the one that uses the word from a user does not use the word receipt so you have to that well that's not the way claim construction work perhaps you are entitled to claim as broadly as a particular piece of priority allows but you have to actually disclose and claim it and they didn't do that here and what they want to do is water down t word static lead by mary turn that they chose that is the feature that prevents the rug from being pulled out from under you that's what they deliberately to the jury in the exhibit at the bottom of page twelve of the read brief which is reproduced from the attendees this is what a static display of prices is it's one that you don't miss the price when the market changes because it's state static that was the key to the invention and what they want to do is water down the word static to the point where it has no meaning and put the burden to say well that word had no meeting you find limitations in the specification because static by itself meant nothing our position is static means something it has a presumption of motionlessness and then the claim lay which goes on and specifically excluded magically separating the independent claims that permit manual rese brief is that the others made no contribution until like a year later sometime after the critical date so i don't think that is an issue i think what's interesting is since the fast case ten eleven years ago which was kind and then secondly where was the burden of proof on that and i think the bird approved was on chichi and what the evidence shows is that as soon as mr bromfield took delivery and paid for this he wasn't experimenting he was trading stands even though we were never put in our case the chief establishes a sale at the ready for patrick crocker they are on appeal to raise the defense of well it was experimental use and i think that they have the burden of going forward there and they've really come forward with nothing what you see is it was experimental use were an exception but of course it's not not a it's a negotiation meaning that the burden always remains on you to prove a public use they can negate that if they come up with sufficient evidence of experimentation but always the burden is on you to prove a public use because that's the only question that is ever before the court whether there's a public use there is no such thing as a separate experimental use doctrine there's only public use and then they gauge in a public use with sufficient evidence i agree with that statement of the law let me just in the few seconds i delivered i think of the robotic vision standard there's no question it was ready for patenting by the critical date at that point i believe your honor it was their burden to come forward with the negation evidence of the negation perhaps in the end the ultimate b a persuasion would be with us but i think they had that burden to come forward which they have not met and that's what you did in the brief separately your honor with respect to the public use there you know the district court had a hearing and made a fin that during that interview to period between the two critical dates of the provisional and the non provisional and this was based on video evidence and mr brown fields on mission he was trading to make money during that period so that's not an a comeback of our central issue with us and the one issue we didn't discuss last time that seems to give you trouble you've got an explicit definition we haven't talked about the parentheses you say the command is going to be received and you say we'll discuss that in detail later and the only thing you discuss as men so right don't doesn't your definition read in a single way of doing it static period later this pattern goes on that's not the only discussion a static that one live in detail to discuss the static is it that is three and four the pattern and says you can see the static by looking at figures three and four and it gives  example of the market changing between time one time too and you can see places that still market went up that some of the detail later also later was an example given a manual recently but i think we're missing something easy missing something here invention is not resign or in the invention in some dependent claims covers was sunny but this invention is not all about resetting the independent claims don't even require one other thing i want to point out is the core one of the main things i think that got the core off base here was it started off with dictionary definitions looking at the ordinary meaning of static which is motionless but it presume that the ordinary meaning means motionless all the time that's not even in district judge who sat through that and heard every bit of evidence and and waited on why don't i think use markman construction deserves a great deal more credibility than my quick reading of the br construction talk about more realistic scenarios that gave a construction in which it staggered women cover screening which is a one in a million chance of an auto reset and i think that goes against the common stance and finally let me let me i just one more  himself and they sent a carpenter to his office and built for that in a time and materials basis i don't think anybody would have any doubt that was a sale of a desk and we don't think there's an exception for software computer systems