claim construction too broadly and too the claim was invalid the whole purpose of the invention is to allow a controller to communicate with different card types we never contended that simply using m m c and s d cards in the said was that the undisputed evidence include testimony of your own expert said that the controller didn't do that that the assigning was done based on the specifications of the pro well with others spec the court did not see the first part she did not address our experts contention and our expert specifically said that when an s d card is inserted it defaults to one bit and the controller sends a signal and tells it to go to four bits thereby assigning four lines to data that's that's undisputed and it's at five to five eight of the appendix paragraph seventy five to seventy five  what five to five eight that's our experts declaration record and those are the pages that going to be at and t and that's what i thought we did your honor in any event it's undisputed in this case that the products of the s d card operates in one that mode or for promote it in the dis or it can do either the control or tells it to operate in either mode now the second point i agree with your honor she said that the district court said that all the controller what controls how the court operates is the s t specification well what the controller  programmed to do if it's hope it's all purpose is to communicate with different types of cards so as noted in the patent figure form five one would look at the specifications for the different cards and program the controller to recognise the card and assign lines based on figures four and five in the in the specifications i get someone  in his declaration says the way the controller knows what lines to put and how to control an s d card is to look at the specification that's in the patent the controller has to be able to communicate with the cards every single card as a speci that tells you how to communicate with the specification is written and says if you're going to use s d cards use what you need to do your the commands that you use and so the controller sends coming ends based on the specification to the card i think that is i think which on the left side give you the pin number and on the right side i'm sorry long the top gives you the card type and then within there that's what a signing yes that's what the i'm not finding that right now i know that i know that it mentions the as your goal i mean it seems as though we're at two different views here you say that if the control or just follows the directions from the specification and does the mapping statement of where we are i think that's correct your honor and here's the distinction the purpose of the patent was that instead of having accept a controller and separate slot for each type of car you'd have a one controller to control multiple cards and some of the pins at least should be shared that's what triggers four and five show person implementing this invention has to get the information of how the different cards work i mean the fact that figures four and five list all the different pin outs for the for the cards to two to four column two of the four to four pat it specifically says they have different and outs and what's more important is at the at the market hearing the district court made a finding that m m c and s d cards are not the same type of car if i can i like to move to the the attorney's fees issue that the district court made to the district court based its attorney's fees exceptionless fining on the weakness of our infringement claim there were two bases given for that the first was he said it lay claim to prior art so she basically assessed our infringement claim and whether or not the claim covered prior art unfortunately she didn't go through so  pins it's impossible magic to that the attorneys are your problem is that the by your own admission the directions of what to do i mean from the specification it's not choices being made by the control and it would seem as  specification is within the scope of the clients or whether the onions are limited to situations where the controller is making decisions about well if the claims do require a decision be made and that decision is what is the type of card that's implement one day line and that's that's absolutely a decision made by the controller and the controller changes based on the type of card inserted it in their products if you put an mc card and think it's an s p it will not work the controller passed to make that decision and they admit that it does at their expert admits that it really wasn't a disputed issue in the case i mean i agree with you that the district court in camden said well the controller doesn't decide what the lines the specification does but that misunderstands the invention the invention is there's lots of different types of cards as shown in figure four and five and you have a single controller that makes decisions once it knows the card type in order to make that decision of what lines do what on the card it has to have that information and that's controlled by the card specifications of that understand what you're saying you want to go on yes yes i just want to make two quick points with respect to the x x optional this there's two reasons that the district found that our infringement case was weak which was the only basis for exceptional swan was we essentially lay claim to prior art and the second was she didn't believe that we had a reasonable basis for thinking that her construction would change the i t c commission  with all due respect we in the beginning of the case because the commission just said with no explanation if you use some data line sometimes and not others and that's not mapping we they didn't can they didn't tell us what mapping was figures four can you find what the i p c c said this is not mapping your use merely using some signal and sometimes she disagreed with that and said and i'm quoting she said it's not plain that using signal lines in some circumstances but not others is not at the hearing she even said her understanding of assigning was taking a group of one things on one side and assigning them to a group on the other side so exactly what we argue but here's the bigger point five defendants all five defendants including canon in the case management statement agree that if the district court adopts our position on mapping it is not this but cannon agreed and told the district court in writing if you would out a signing which is my position it's not the spot is that we had a weak infringement argument she rejected that we litigated in a way to exacerbate the case she said can and do that not us but she specifically says her only basis for finding is that is a substantial weakness of our case she gives two reasons for that and what you just quoted is her saying that our case is weaker than other cases we cited but the basis for weakness in our case was that we lay claim to the prior art which is not a tax or not if you can't assess an infringement  on page eight at appendix eighteen and seventeen if you look at seventeen line thirteen appendix seventeen line thirteen she says the merits of plaintiff's lawsuit were exceptionally weak for two market in order which is in the record sheet she agreed with that with our claim destruction canon said that's too broad you should limit it there's disclaimer it would lay claim to prior art she said now she disagreed with that yet in the order for first time she finds you would think that would be in the claim construction or agree with you but in the claim the structure or should not the construction the canon said wouldn't be dispositive and then on page eighteen of her order she says secondly  she says defendants further orders the court to specify the use of some signal lines and some circumstances but not others based on fixed assignments does not constitute matter then she goes on the next page one two six zero wind seventeen it is not plain from this discussion that mapping must mean varying the assignment such that using signal lines in some circumstances but not others not constitute mapping she specifically rejected the i t c's basis to do that and i agree if she would have adopted that instruction and said your claim constructions who brought it mark and the case would have been over i would have stipulated to infringed she didn't do that and then after that h p agree that it wasn't dispositive and told that to the district judge when they were trying to explain their inability contentions and explain lack of diligence they then settled the other defendants all settled why did they settle it wasn't dispositive they all admitted it wouldn't be  e and yet one point eight million dollars later canon comes along and filed a motion for summary judgment on that same basis the very same basis that she rejected in markman and she gra both sides are in it for a certain type of assigning they wanted logical signing we wanted physical signing because we we were arguing that i t c got it right what she actually said was i'm going to construed to mean assign all these other arguments about the type of a signing that goes to infringement we'll address that later in the case so when we got the summary judgment we argued under your construction your honor can its controller's do not sign then therefore we do not infringe full stop and she agreed with us she said in the order  assignment occurs so all this issue about what was said at the market hearing and what the judge did is really a sideshow what matters here was before the court is whether she properly granted summary judgment of not infringement and properly worded the attorneys fees under the act in fitness the outcome of the mark in her claim construction supports the order fees because they even said in their blue brief that the claim destruction was broader than what the i t c had held and they still lost on summary judgment didn't even get to the trial that george the judge found there was not enough find the s d cards as occasion at sixty three in the appendix it lays out which signals go on which pins the mc specification does the same think the extent there's any assigning in this case it's done by these cards standards all these cards have to comply with the current standards in fact the canon controllers are incapable of changing that they cannot make a decision that on today i'm going to put the clock signal on line seven they can't do that all they can do is follow the cards and it's as if they did i guess my season so first of all your honor mapping doesn't appear anywhere in the pan suit that was introduced during prosecution so you're not going to find a definition of mapping in the posts a lot about prosecution history the prosecution history the only thing that happened was there was a reference hung jew as it is which is described in the breeze which has a slot for several different types of cards but it has one set of pins for s t an mc they argued to the patent office on jew does not disclose mapping does not appear in the patterns mapping is not appear in the history other than they added the word in and said hungry doesn't disclose that but what they did say in judge look and pointed this out in her summary judge an order is that figures four and five is the disclosure of call so to the extent that there's any mapping describing these bands and what that means it can't be the difference between m and c in s d because the patterns themselves refer to those two cards as the same thing in fact as a judge will can point out in the s judgment where those cards are mentioned twenty two times and every single time it's s the slash m m c or mc slash as the so the extent mapping means anything it can't be the difference between transferring data on four lines for an s d card and transferring data on one line for an mc cart first of all that's required by the card standards the controllers in the can price have no say in that they only implement what the standard requires of them and they can't change it so the controllers are not doing any this these patents claim to have invented is one slot you can put every single kind of card in and you have either eighteen or twenty one pins and whether it's figure four or five you have one slot where all every single type of card goes and they all because the s d card was designed as a follow on to the m m c card m n c card but only had one date and so if you had a large digital picture it took a long time for that to transfer to computer on the single pin so the whole point of as you was to have parallel data transfer  for pins but that distinction between four bit transfer and serial parallel has no bearing on infringement here because it's all data it's the same kind of data it's going on the same lines whether it's an s d room as you car and cans controller has no say in which signals go on to which lines so there's no mapping here the controllers do not perform any mapping as required by the claims and all these sort of claims require mapping based on the type of card inserted the can controllers do not do any mapping as judge will can correctly found and she had warned them in the market in order that if can its products operate like conduit which is the arc that they distinguished and and said is not mapping then you likely have no inferential here she said that in the market in order and that's what came to fruition in the summary judgment or we pointedly explained her and their expert actually agrees we all agree our products operate according to the card standards they have to but that does not constitute mapping as these patterns constantly because the controller is not deciding which signals go on which lines they chant it's told which signal to put on which lines they cannot decide or assigned those based on the type of  i was one of the point of court to appendix sixty eight zero three which is the that's the memory card specification it actually shows which signals go on which lines all of this is done and set in the can of products before the controllers even power on for the first time so there's no way that the controllers can be found and there's no evidence in the record that the canon controllers actually do any mapping or had any control or say over which signals go on which wines they're going to do mapping but  say which in has to have which signal and that's the question whether that comes within the twenty right and so our view your honor is that the controllers are controller chant very that in fact they have no say in it they just they're just they're passively transferring data on the sign on the assignments they were already set by the carts and so the judge will can correctly found that there's no mapping with based on what the controllers are doing and there's no directed me to call him to that the very top there one twelfth read from that do you read that to fill in the same manner as your opponent all that says you are in fact the reason that my friend pointed to that point that's the only place in the entire record that m c s you refer to without the slash between them all that says is that they actually have the same form factor but a slightly say over that is just sending data down the lines of the spec card standers require in this on page ten of the read brief my friend pointed out we have a table showing you that on pins two three  only difference every other pin that's common between the two has the same type of signal for an s t r nemeses card so there's no mapping are signing even going on the patent does not use the word mapping at all so the only thing that my friend pointed to is figures four and five and saying that that shows you as between these different types of cards what the controller is doing that the issue is pin outsider in figures for five they're not the same as the cards anders so if you were to look at the cards in the for smart media for example ground is not going to be in one right so the the inventors let's use one slot one set of eighteen or twenty one pins for every single type of card that's in existence and they listed them here and then they said we're going to assign different signals to different types of oppin is but the controller even if it was operating in accordance with this the controller is going to be passively sending signals down the lines but the key point in judge will can when done in order m m c n s d is in the single column in both figures four and five so even the inventors of specifications in those instances also direct the controller as to what to do the car all of these cards have specifications just like as you know them c but the patent does not these pin outs in the patterns figure that's not dictated by the specification yes because the that the mappings and figures of figures four and five are not the same as the cards as occasions so the controller is sending signals down in accordance with fig four and five whereas for an s d an m n c card in the queues can products the controllers making no decision about anything it's just passively sending the signals down the winds that were set forth by the card standards before can even made it  are different types of signals on that same pin for all these other kinds of cards but for any of the seen as the they're the same they're in a single column so the controller is not very anything with respect to those two cars at all as shown in the figure on page ten of the red brief the signals are all the same still unclear about is whether the respect of the other four specification is what dictates the assignment ends or whether the controllers are making some choices the card specification doesn't control anything with respect to these other kinds of cards because these assignments of here's what i'm driving at is illusion mapping involved with respect for the other  that with respect as the m m c because they are the same you can make an awful argument perhaps that this that if you're doing it with respect to the specification has the capacity to conduct parents here chose not to appeal to this court the itc's determination that there's no mapping instead they restarted the district court case and judge will confound in that decision along with her warning in the market in order that if the accused products operate the same as hungry which means a type of arrangement that they disclaim during the five history then there is no infringement they were warned then and they still proceeded with the case and oppose our summary judgment they didn't concede not infringement and come to this court they opposed it and judge will confound the case was exceptional from the start and that the fees incurred by canon to defend it were reasonable and within the realm of what was necessary to defend against a case that they had no choice but to not like to make two quick points first this point about this warning that if i think about this if their products operate like prior art there is no infringement that's not the test for infringement and it's question of how you can screw the map and she construed mapping they wanted her to construe it in a way that said it were like conduit doesn't count and she didn't do that she specifically said no that's the difference between hunch to and what can and here's a here's this is undisputed footnote five of our opening brief but how do you has eight pins in the s d m m c slot it's undisputed and we cite the evidence in the opening brief and footnote five it can't do four bit parallel transfer with with eight pins you need nine for s d cards their product doesn't isn't like hung do they have nine pins and they do parallel transfer the specification he cited to you that in the record appendix six eight one three specifically says that a fall but after power up is one that butts in as the carts are expert didn't just come to conclusions he tested these products and he confirmed that their products change from one bit us the four bit us that was not addressed by their expert it wasn't addressed by the court there's no question about that if they were like conduit we wouldn't be here that's why we didn't appeal in the i t c some of the defendants said you know what we're not going to use as to which lines to assign and his not being directed to do that by the specification no that's not correct and it's not in the record opera not that well here let me make sure i'm understanding the controller with respect to all the cards makes the decision based on the cards not looking but with respect to the other cards it's not doing just what is directed by the specification making a choice know it is doing just what is directed by th the district court found under some reject more than m m c n s t are the same and treated the same that's another area where in the market in order she specifically found at ph appendix nine to five this is the same call and then  alone because they can have all the other pins are the same except one has seven pins one has nine pins and what i want to direct you to is that they made that argument in mark and the district court proposal that m n c and s t are the same the intrinsic evidence does not support that your conclusion that the applicant clearly limited the term to mean m m c s d cards or single type of court instead and she goes through and talks about figure one for you one of the pet shows them a separate parts it's something i can do to fix that i'm happy