reserve two minutes for about a please this appeal present several issues of clean construction for the court i would like to try to focus on three of those issues today the first issue involves the validation turns in the continuation pat validate the document validity of the document and the term valid so that six hundred six ninety six and nine or eight that's correct let me ask you a threshold question two threshold sort of procedural questions one is you would have to the scanning terms and the other thing is just i don't want to leap ahead to your other case but you've got the other case going and i just want to be sure i understand the overlay which with the indefiniteness conclusions on the patents at issue here ye that that issue is being addressed in the second appeal shirt thank you very much so with respect to the validity terms the key issue there the q dispute is should the validity terms be construed consistent with the claims and specifications of the continuations or should they be construed in view of statements in the six to five patent which is the parent patent statements which do not appear in the specifications of the continuations so specifically what i'm referring to is that in the continuations the content the concept of validation of a document is that a document is reviewed and the constituent parts of that document are reviewed themselves for validity each is reviewed and then some standard that the bank requires is applied to each of those constituent parts to determine ultimately whether the bank will deem the document being deposited to be valid and that is the validation procedure of the continuations in the six to five pat there's a teaching regarding validity of a signature and generally in the sixty five patent a signature is considered valid if it passes one of two tests it either is valid because when it's when it's compared to the signature on record of user it's sufficiently close it's authentic or at least if it bears significant orse or sufficient similarity with the record signature and there's another there's another in body mint which discusses actually recognizing the characters of the signature to a confidence level and having those characters confirmed by the bank what par well for the six to five pattern we are we are actually saying that there were two statements which were applied by a district court in its construction which are not in the continuations and which should not have been used to read the requirement of signature authentication into the continuations so looking that the foremost problem is integrity of the document being exchanged for cash in particular verification of signatures on checks or money orders in cash the second statement says the cashing of checks or money orders is a cheap buy the ability to read the curs ve signature of the drawer or maker of the instrument to verify the curse of signature as being that of a profile or qualified user was inserted his a t m card into the machine so the district court relied on the statements requiring that all claims of all the patents even though these statements are not in the continuation specification and even though the continuation claims deal with check the positing not check cashing relied on the statements to read signature authentication into the definition of validating a document and that goes to the six hundred ninety four a correct and the and the six nine and six nine sex because there is a term valid  for to determine that a signature is valid in the six nine sex ok well even if we were hypothetically to agree with the argument you've just made you're still left with the scanning limitation that's correct on the scanning the argument regarding scanning the dispute is simply whether scanning requires sweeping across an image that doesn't require some relative movement between the document being image the imaging device now the district court concluded that sweeping across an image is required and it is based at decision on extrinsic evidence however looking in the past the pattern specification now that is all it is called imaging in some parts of the capturing an image in some parts of the specification it's called scanning in others sometimes those terms are used interchangeably it may be out maybe i misunderstood there's a lot going on in this case but i understood that's correct and we regard this not as identifying two different ways of capturing an image we identify this as a sort of in other words you're saying it's scanned in other words images are being captured and we believe that that that is correct because there are other so there are other disclosures in the specification where the where the cameras are are are described as actually taking photographs of the check so for example in the six hundred patent on nineteen lines twelve through fifteen it states in a manner similar to that used for the scanning of the track the cameras fifty eight and sixty photograph both sides of the cash money order and locate the initial showing the amount of the money order etc so that's a case where the space the same scanners require relative movement in that case the court found however that cameras are not scanners and photographing is not scanning and therefore it appears at least in this particular discussion that those cameras are taking photographs which means it's not scanning and so we have a situation where the patent is referring to scanning photographing capturing images not any specific intent to show that there is sweeping and in fact  two concepts are distinguishing them i'm saying that the patentee use the term scanning photographing interchangeably the panty wasn't saying we have relative movement we do sweeping the panties just say we need to take chalk yes because it's one embodiment you know only thing i suppose is one environment with those two cameras so those cameras are taken are capable of taking photographs which doesn't involve the relative movement the sweeping that was right into the claim from if any other parts of specification like this that you're relying on for that position this is the one that actually uses the term photograph calm thirteen lines fifty nine through sixty two which the court referred to earlier with the language the check feeds directly into and stops at an imaging station where the check is scanned or images of the front and back sides of the check  captured this was the language relied on by n c r to say that those are different then later on in the case in column fourteen line seven through eleven it says also while the vertical stop in the vertical stop a zisha is preferred to have a camera unit fifty eight and sixty disclose on opposite sides to capture images of both sides of the check and connect through scuzzy device fifteen on to the computer so the same device is sometimes they're referred to as scanning other times they do image capture  so the key item here is that there's no there's no obvious intent here looking at the environments and looking at the language that indicates that the patentee intended for the capture of images in its invention to be limited to using a scanner that sweeps it makes no difference to the invention whether this is a scanner that sweeps or not it's irrelevant all that matters is that images are captured and so what's happened here is that we've n c i seized on the use of the term scan to try to get a limitation into the claims when that limitation is not clearly required is not supported by any disclosure but instead is supported by looking at the word scan which is used interchangeably with other terms and then using dictionaries that may be the easiest way to resolve the sixty five patent as the court identified the specification of the continuations quite clearly distinguishes the concept well and let your friend have it this is the answer did he not to my pulling out that you distinguishing two different concepts which is consistent with all the extremes of evidence about what's going on in the feel which is to say there are two different ways in which digital data can be put into an a t m one is via a scanning device which has a sweeping motion another is via image line five and then in line nine there's a separate discussion of capturing images and again not showing that there is a recognition that scanning is used in one place an image capture is used elsewhere and i to be mechanical movement of the thing being scared if the light beam from the scanner is what's doing the sweeping so it's certainly the case that a camera can be configured to scan if it has a sweeping motion from the camera and i don't respond to that point  scanning is something that may be similar to image capture but it's not the same thing these are two distinct concepts and also identify the all of the extrinsic evidence in the record this includes the dictionary definitions other have put but not just the dictionary definitions also the page fifty five characterizes and c r s agreement argument that relies on this prior art that and what the prior art shows the court agrees and continues to discuss the court the common ordinary meaning of scanning and then from there site ascertaining an apparent signature right we disagree on it because that would then lead to render the language to validate the document entirely superfluous it wouldn't have any function in the claim language if the earlier step of ascertaining the apparent signature were sufficient to that machine will quote analyze the signature image and compare it with the profile signature of the user so in the only embodiment that we understand has the explanation of what validation looks like in the signature it's doing the exact kind of comparison analysis so we think that those who are embodiment doesn't bear on this question if anything is entirely consistent with what the district court understood as to their being a comparison requirement but again to the court central question i think are a principal argument as their contention would read th i think argument there is yet stronger because there the claim language is determining if the signature is valid that the plaintext meaning a valid as is the district court found it is quite compelling evidence for its construction also there is a limitation differentiation between the prior the cashing system there are two main disputes of course the first is whether or not in the with respect to claim one of the sixty five if the preamble is limiting and we think that it is obviously limiting it's all the factors that are identified for example  somewhere in the claims we think it's most naturally found in the preamble of the claims but it certainly exists somewhere in the claims in terms of the construction of the phrase cap sex principle argument is that check rather the district court got this precisely correct the district court found that cash is quote providing cash during a single u t m session up the amount of the instrument presented in that appendix page forty eight the district court underscored what it understood by this which it is it has to be the money from the check not the money from your account as the district court's clear understanding of what check cashing means in this context that that's absolutely correct and i asked you i'm going to go back to the scanner limitations for one minute you had said that  for they talk about the district court when there's a dispute as to whether the dictionary definition has changed and there's certainly been no change in the dictionary dot of my question is why do you think they don't contest it given especially when they have other things where they say even if these definitions were relevant they should have been rejected understand your point you're saying you put in all these definitions all these dictionaries don't necessarily contemporaneous and you say they never we didn't well you're the district court made a factual finding based on these dictionary to be relevant to a scanner i like is the complaining about your definition that's right you are there they're complaining that the definition they've they they don't think was probative they don't have an alternative definition but they say instead the court should have relied on this alternative definition in lieu of what we presented and that's what i'm saying the evidence is all one sided in this case in again the court can look to advocate software where the court i went through this exact same analysis in a planet for example to the webster's dictionary that said the hundred sixty eight definition of scanner is the exact same definition in the third edition of upstairs in two thousand and two there's been no change and so that's why the court in shire said and someone wants to dispute the dictionary definition or particularly a publication date it's incumbent on them respect to the scanning issue our position is that the specification discloses one in bottom and it has two cameras those cameras are characterized as taking photographs or characterizes capturing images there's also the use of scanning  describe the operation in general of the image in capture from the check there is there is definitely only one environment if those cameras take photographs and what we've seen in the in the case law that was submitted by  we can faster that the the application of extrinsic evidence to contradict or change the meaning of how the inventor was using the term scan in the intrinsic record was improper so to be clear it's we're not excluding sweepin what we're saying is that the image can be taken in any way i disclose it could be if by photograph it satirise all the term scanned in the claims isn't intended to be limited only to using sweeping to obtain an image and that that's that's the crux of our argument with respect to the caching issue that was raised the first issue with respect to caching is the fact that the district court read into the definition of caching that in a single session at an a t m cashing can take place cash in can only a cash in system can only provide up to the amount of money that's provided by the check in cash a single session m however can involve multiple transactions and so while you can cash a check and obtain money against the check and we don't we don't dispute that cashing involves getting money in exchange for a check that can be other transactions that  during the a t m session which would allow the user to obtain more than the amount of the check and that type of transaction is excluded from the claims based on this by the court's construction and there's no evidence in the record to support it except th