this is in two thousand and eleven fifteen forty six mr hill disagreeing with the claim construction of this provision you're just saying that even if you can screw it at the district court did the only question he carried on with the claim does not preclude accepting the media assets fact authorized with the user account the the failing of the district court's construction is that instead of focusing on authorizing as in the sense of registration whereby the device to focus on the system language of the pre as if that somehow breathe life into the squat but in actuality the albums of the system call included a server application that have the capability of recognizing whether or not two or more devices were supplied in a user's account and then when it came to the modem access the separate element of an application residing on the media player itself accessing and decided that access can be user account ip on the server side was somehow an exclusive criteria for testing the of the wording of the device itself to access the before meeting the briefs i thought that was your argument but it doesn't seem to me that your the the argument you made in your brief really hung its hat on the term comprising you argue a lot about the word for al negative limitations but is that your argument then that when you have the word comprising that doesn't that difficult does that mean that the district court cannot constrain itself to what actually claims the limitation itself and that would never find within that universe of devices a subset of devices that drew their access to the asset i birju of the fact that they were associated with a user account and fi access media the focus now is no longer on those devices that are authorized with the user account and set or focus on apple's argument about a device that identified itself to really use of account that never technically registered with the user account before it court ended up focusing on the plain language of the clients and the powerful was right to talk about the fact that this case is an example of the folks admonition from us court our task here is determined based on the points the written description of the authorized with the user account and also then allowing access to the media assets associated with the user account to those authorized devices that your friend says at least to download the song that i've already purchased that would be an example of going in on an authorized device completely unknown to the apple system and to my registration  because he didn't pay attention in planning for to the fact that half of last limb of the which was an application residing on it at least line forty five the client database application allows the media player user to access files stored in the portal in his or virtual media library so clearly what that disclosing is the focus is exactly where just falls into place that in this case he said what these claims are dealing with here is the user going to the system and  turns into but nonetheless in the comics case the court said if you take a look at what's going on here preparing a suspension and then reacting employments and then izing there could have been additional structures added as far as op arising but that wouldn't change the fundamental nature of the way these clients and this is them works that isn't dealing with the use starting with content wind sixty four it says the user will have access to his or her license assets other include payment devices that he or she because it wasn't the route the user account they would say that in order to go through the user account would require proof of work seeing the tables or changing the tables or impacting the table there's no requirement in either