is taken under submission and that's the case for today it's two zero one five dash one seven three two advanced ground information versus life three sixty saying that he was not aware whether the term symbol generator has a meaning in computer science he didn't actually say that that's one of the key points where we think the district or clearly character what he said is that he was said was that ok the term exactly those two words were not used in the past but a person skilled in the mark would know the exact really what it is is when they heard it and that's the standard your honor there isn't any requirement after reading the patent that's a person skilled they are understand now that it is structure and then it is pretty existing structure is i think that's what you have here there's three limitations at issue symbol generator we don't even need to receive software that's correct simple generators and each of the claims it is short and simple generator is the point is that if you understand what it means now person skilled in the art of the evidence on this is overwhelming here are the expert testified again and again that these terms whether they were used before would be understood by a person skilled in the are now after  come with every computer for years assembled generator a means for generating simple it does do that your honor and very obvious corruption of the function well but you can take any term like detect mended mechanism and say well  it's a mechanism that detects something or digital detector is a detector that detects something you can turn it around but if the big issue is if it's a preexisting tool like in a tool box you can have hardware tools and you can have software tools and when you get a computer for that for decades when you get a computer they come with certain tools already in there for the programmer and one of the tools that already there is this idea of taking the symbol out of a graphical of the library and positioning on a screen you don't have that it's not something that the programmer create for devices it's already existing and it's structured and what i was going to say i think the summary of the evidence to any particular structure to one of skill and they are answer sure it's the software that is used as we talked about this the system for displaying the symbols the images for each user on the screen and i would note that every manufacturer of a device that can display stuff on the screen provides a library of software modules that a user or developer can use to display him does on the screen then later on the question so to be clear dr goldberg does this plane language symbol generator refer to one of ordinary skill to specific to existing specific rhythms or to simply advise him what he might be able to devise answer no it refers to the use of software libraries that every device hands in order to display an image on the screen at the right forward at this point the port comes in and says well let me ask you on the last line where does this suggest that the software would be available from the manufacturer of the device as as opposed to being part of this invention with this dr goldberg because just the act of displaying images on a screen is part of every device you already get that that's not part of our invention that you have to do and fact our invention is a combination playing here you know with a lot of hardware elements lots of software moments basic elements of course they're all you know the idea that you take the image out of the library put it on the screen that's been true for computers for decades and the idea that you have a telephone and that you have that you want to pull the network by sending a message to certain phone numbers every phone been able to do that comes with a device that's not our invention and that's not something that you have to do that's a structure of the software structure but it's still a structure it's something that already exist port want to be clear about that it went on said was this true in two thousand and six the witness said oh yes going back to the sixty's so it's very clear we submit your honor that the witness was testifying here these simple generator and the other two terms as well they didn't know existing pieces of code that already come through the device it's not just a question of how you use it one point the court also said well look i think he's talking about enablement because he was saying someone still in the art that used the stuff that creator devices the thing already exists if you look at the testimony the testimony has its structure it already exists sure someone can easily use it but that doesn't mean it relates to enablement they're not talking about how to create it it already exists now the other thing that presumption don't forget we didn't use that term means there is a presumption here that it's not means plus function and the court simply didn't apply that presumption gave lip service to it in summary summarizing legal for but when you look at the ports analysis you can clearly goes through trying to discount what dr goldberg said or say it related to enablement or whatever and he then says at one point he's not persuaded by but the fact is that even if he's not persuaded by dr goldberg's testimony and you take it away it still can't be means plus function because there's a presumption  here in effect it's clear error when you have a presumption and you have all this testimony from the only person to build new york who's testifying because the defendants put in know it and they're not talking about the intrinsic evidence in that situation but all that evidence and the presumption thrill a judge to say well you know i'm not persuaded by the expert therefore it's and it sounds functional to me structure and they didn't do it they put in no evidence the only two places where the district court tried to find some support for that conclusion is but you decided your honor where he said basically one of skill new york would understand what a simple generator is he said generators a term of are simple is a term of art whether you heard simple generator in the course of study computer science i'm not aware but certainly in the context about software so to rules program ghouls things like that so the issue is not whether the exact two words use of the past the issue is but they're really a structure here in the past and here they're really loves the evidence is overwhelming every device comes with the module you need to send a message out to polling network or to open a channel to exchange data with the phone or to simply grab a symbol out of the library and put it on the screen you know you would hopelessly clever specification to do if you had algorithms for things like that on the phone sending a message you don't need algorithms for that these things refer to the basic structure you're well and here rebuttal time would you like thank you and may please or the claim terms that issue in this appeal are generic placeholder words for unspecified software hardware or perhaps some combination of the two we just don't know from the intrinsic or extrinsic record here these phrases are tantamount to using the word means because they are expressly claimed in terms of functions in terms of results not in terms of any structure and that kind of structurally generic claiming style is exactly what overcomes the presumption in williams probative and had good reason not to in this case for one the bulk of the testimony went to an issue that was beside the point when to the issue of whether a person is still in the art would be able to implement the functionality in software or in hardware based on the knowledge that they have not to the central question under williamson which is and i'm quoting here whether the words of the claim are understood as the name for structure the words of the claimant if you hear symbol generator just as an expert admits is not a name for anything that he is aware of in the field of computer science the fact that he places and that's that's correct your honor i think it's worth noting that that fact finding is based on the extrinsic record in the subject a clear error review and not only does testimony we think speak very well for itself but here the district court not only reviewed testimony in a declaration but also heard dr goldberg testify live and in fact question dr goldberg so when this district judge says he finds that testimony on persuasive and finds that this is a coin term that lacks a clear meaning we think it is a very heavy burden on appeal to justify setting aside that finding this case had been lined where symbol generator was a particular snippet of code that was well understood to operate according to a particular algorithm known by people of skill in the art if that's what the testimony was with this be a different case and i ask you that because i'm just a little bit concerned that if i take your arguments to the extreme that all software is now one twelve six and always requires disclosure of an algorithm and i'm not sure that that's a place that i'd want to go on on these facts it may not be necessary so you tell me what your thoughts are sure i like you with your i don't think we need to go to that extreme to reach the corr result here or under the law i actually think the court's recent media rights decision is very helpful in this regard where the term was compliance mechanism and when it's a term that is essentially coined for purposes of the patent it doesn't have a clear meaning outside the context of the pa terms so the analog here would be we have a term symbol generator and we know what it does but we don't know what it is we can even if it even if we were to assume that it connotes some sort of software function we can avoid invoking section one t six if there's some definitional indication in the spec about what that symbol generator is or if the testimony had been the term symbol generator is known in the are to be a particular snippet of software that follow particular algorithm i think that would be helpful i still think that if there was nothing in the intrinsic record whatsoever to support that it would be like if a person of skill in the art says everyone of skill in the art would understand this term to have a plain ordinary meaning  but here we don't have anything other than the expert dr goldberg's completely uncorroborated and conclusory assertion essentially everything that was just argued by my he also says he doesn't know what the phrase make right i think that and i think that it district court looking at that testimony combined with all of the other assertions made by dr goldberg that are not in any way corroborated was more than enough for this record to reject that testimony and persuasive and find that the term didn't have a clear meaning  dr goldberg for example showed not one example of what one of these software graphics libraries would be he simply took proclaims that a person is guilty i would know what it is and back to your point judge more i do think that it's important and maybe if the district court judge most pertinent to the question under williamson is extrinsic is leads to a fairly highly differential standard in this case so it's looking at the term symbol generator which as noted this does affect all the flame terms on appeal and is dispositive the way that these terms are phrased in the claims are incredibly functional it's a symbol generator quote for generating symbols a symbol generator quote that can generate symbols there's no definition or indication in the specification of what the symbol generator is all we know from the claims that it's for generating symbols and all we see in the specification is that it's some black box from which a symbol is ultimately going to be generated those kinds of generic placeholders have been made a specific finding on this record that those structures are not mentioned by the patterns or disclose and we do think that there's a little bit of overlap with that finding and the threshold invocation question is this court in williamson noted the  about looking for some indication of what this term might why you know you just says one of these things sit down with your head but why in the world did you just suggest to me that deciding whether they're structure in the specification or not is something to which we give deference why is that not part of a claim construction which is the legal part deciding what structure in this that corresponds to the one twelve six always been in the past i mean are you of the view that something has changed we have lots and lots of cases that say that's part to the issue of whether the presumption was applied by the district court i just want to briefly comment that we do not think that this recorded anything inappropriate in multiple places in its in its opinion that this record observed there was a presumption in place at the time it was pretty williamson in  the presumption was arguably stronger of the district court notably not mention any particular strength of the presumption in its decision it is a position that life three sixty cannot possibly overcome the presumption because we did not offer our own testifying expert we think it's misplaced but we did offer is considerable evidence from the intrinsic record to the district court to show that there was a highly functional claim language in the in terms of defining the symbol jenner in the c p u software terms we offered other evidence of the intrinsic record being silent about any structure whatsoever or any definition and most importantly as we've talked about earlier we did offer critical evidence in the way of admissions from a just as expert proving was essentially a negative that this term these terms do not mean anything to a person skilled in the are and are only calling terms we don't see why we would have to additionally bring in a yet another expert to simply say we've already got a just as expert to admit and i agree with a that mike the question of law but we're basically talking about the judge's finding which we say it's clearly are only that person skilled in the are would not understand the meaning of these terms with all due respect we don't think the testimonies equivocal it just not if you look at the summary of testimony pages form five a reply brief it's overwhelming and the only two things the judge pointed to don't say that this was a pointer or that it lacked clear meaning they just don't say that the judge is wrong when he drew the conclusion what he said was i'm not sure i'm not aware whether the word generator and simple were used together in the past but persons who  or appear in any technical treatise or appear in any dictionary or were ever taught people who study software in college those were all parts of his testimony as well he's not aware of those two terms being put together in any of those places correct but in the context of this patent here on it he said that person skilled in the aren't reading this band would know them immediately what simple generator is and that it's something that already exists even provide any evidence of that other than his testimony exactly but his credibility that put this credibility was never challenged your honor in other words this is not an issue where the credibility of the witnesses just just a question of what he said so he's the expert the judge is not he's the expert on whether person skilled in the art would understand when they read this fact that it was to the meaning of the term symbol generator has his credibility as an expert one not sure not not as to his knowledge of what person skill the art would understand i think the judge drew the conclusion that because the words weren't used in the past together that therefore they lacked clear meaning in her point terms but he didn't say that he said even if the person skilled we are here these two words together for the very first time having read this patent they would know what this is it's a preexisting structure and i think that's the standard if you look at it invent your case if you look at that you will see that it's after you read the patent in that context does a person skilled in the r understand that this just describe a particular class of structures and the answer here is the evidence said yes and if you take that evidence away if a drafter doesn't intend to use reason of plus function it grabs it without the means for language he grasps it for person skilled in the art all of whom understand without any further explanation is not necessary what a symbol generator is because it comes with every single device every computer has for years to then have a judge come along say well you know we don't know what it means and it sounds functional therefore it means less function that really shouldn't happen this should be reversed ok thanks for the counsel for their argument this case is taken under