of the bar in good standing of the highest court of texas i have knowledge of his credentials and i'm satisfied that the possesses the necessary qualifications to be a member of our party law has served as my locker for nearly year i have been incredibly impressed with his performance this intelligence is demeanor he's been a wonderful addition to the court before i hired in the clerk for a district court judge who said  this is the best work i ever have and he has not disappointed me at all it's been a wonderful clark happy to have his mother terry glover here to witness him being sworn in and i have no doubt that you'll be a productive contributor to our bar so i know for his admission i'll leave it to my colleagues to decide if i think compelling enough we shall discuss you can drug that the computer knows will be at that specific location now the two plane construction disputes on the subpoena will concern the interface between the picking means and the storage rack and they're both best illustrated by claim one of the that the story area location is not the place where the drugs actually reside but rather the place when they come to the end of the conveyor belt the place the things in occupy the end of the conveyor belt that the storage area location or the storage area location would be the area right in which the rod that at any given time is up the loading area is so there's a sort of your location hold a rod with packages in it and the claim makes it says specifically over and over that the picking means can reach into and out of store very location so the surgery location is that volume that at any given time is at the loading and now i would also remind the court that and we think this is really important and this perhaps is where the dispute comes down to that consideration of accused products the supposed to be absolutely irrelevant to claim construction the reason being that the meaning of the claims depends of course on the intrinsic record from the prosecution and doesn't have anything to do it certainly doesn't change as the products are later developed now the reason and corresponding increase of technology is the reason that's not just the legally true but also really important is that when you're looking at something like to see times depend in part on the vantage from which you're looking at it that's the point about hindsight bias an obvious analysis so if we just look at the claim language in light of the specification intrinsic evidence you see one thing you know so much of their brief is about  ones with struct x y coordinate locations there are a few things that we do that also directly address first the specifications twice explains what the computer does with the x y coordinates it says the computer can direct the picking means along a track in rotating conveyors on the inside then you're right the computer would also need to know additional information but there's nothing in again getting infringement but a frenchman turns on whether the accuser product is us all playing on the table not the other way around so fact that you could have additional features additional aspects of the invention doesn't negate infringement because the of the claim elements are still there the x y coordinates are still the computer and of course it's contemplated that the computer would put a lot more embodiment operates in three dimensions we don't need you know the three dimensions doesn't need to be discussed at all in any of the plane constructions our construction of x y coordinates is simply that it's a place where there is a picking means can put packages into  i don't see the complication that it needed some sort of special instruction short of the party subs the dispute is whether storage area locations or locations that the picking means can reach which just say look asians that are the pygmies can get from the front of the from the loading end of the story track that's our view their view is that surgery location to be anywhere in the story track including a place that the piccaninnies can't get to that's the substantive dispute and so that's what needs that's what needs construction in terms of how to resolve it correctly the claim but not just in one word it's the relationship of several claim elements can establish a claim element and when that happens the way that the court of the court does a claim destruction structure in our system is to put that limitation into the buffer to include what it does and how it did it the reason is that it's way beyond what the word buffer with mean but it was a limitation describing the claim therefore the jury had constructed on it and put it inside that definition that is future is never been whether this limitation that we're talking about is properly within the definition of one term or somewhere else our point is the jury has to be instructed on the limitation in some way and no one's ever disputed the doing it that we've never held the district co the x y coordinates tells a robot or to go so that's a different interpretation you have for your one tenth patent is a myth the the main difference between the two patents is just that the two sixty seven the first the storage that's not the way you put wheels around it the frame has to be connected to some sort of sentient system which was then connected to the wheel the suspension system doesn't become wheels simply because the claim structurally defines them that's connected and i feel like that's exactly what you're asking us to do here you're asking us to say the storage location is where the picking means does the choosing because in the claim that because the plane because the clinton us of that claim says the storage location location is where the communes goes which makes a lot of sense because the computer directs the the picking means to an x y location precisely because it knows that that's where it can get the relevant drugs and even involved the arguments which the mckesson is now making before this court the simple proffered claim construction was a place in the storage area accessible to the picnic meetings where packages that have nothing about having to be on a plane nothing about for the picking needs moves to just that it must be accessible at the picking means must be able to access storage or that's all what's important about that is judge robinson found that there was a precise detail in the claimants out in fact the separate element of accessibility for separate elements of accessibility in the other elements of the claim so she found no reason to have to duplicate that in a construction of a very simple and common word storage area and so she let it go to the jury she affirmatively found there was no need to construe this trial to give it its plain ordinary meaning and then it went to the jury on a very simple factual question not a legal question didn't leave it to the construction the very same claims go there was no dispute as to claim scope so the factual question was was it or not accessible to the jury found that there was accessibility so that's why there is no need and i thin in this case require the construction certainly not construction after eight years and remained for another trial on an issue that already went to a factual dispute that already went to the jury on accessibility with respect to the x y coordinates construction very similar to the claims control of this construction this is one of the examples of a pattern where the claims defined clearly define what the x y coordinate is to be assigned to it's to be assigned to supply rods it's to be assigned to rods it's to be assigned to storage area locations and it's to be assigned to medicine packages that  wives must be attached to those to those structures now what mckesson is arguing is that you need to ignore the claim language go to the specifications and look at in them body mint where it talks about a single plane and a trac import that into the claim so that the x y becomes attached to the location of the mood of the movement of the picking means not the location of the rock well it would be absolutely contrary to the to the words of the client and then of course we shouldn't be importing the language from the specification into the claim to begin with now give some examples as to why we shouldn't particularly in this case something that my region or yes it's a matter of construction and in this case for example the example which mr joseph forgave about in the specification is an embodiment where the picking means moves along an x y track a single track will in the prosecution history this patente argued a distinguishing track it is not limited to a single plane that it can move in the x y z direction so even the embodiment which mr joseph would ask that this court bring into the claim is inconsistent with the filer and that's just one exam so our argument here really is really down to the claim language to claim language here which requires that the x y coordinates be tied to the rods the storage or location now another example i think which makes it completely clear which which tells this court why should it should ignore this attaching the x y to the movement of the piccaninnies instead of the structure both cats can claim one of the one ten database containing at least one x y coordinate location in the storage area that's the whole system for each package held within the storage area and then similarly in the in the two sixty the computer having a database containing an x y coordinate location for all packages in the holding means that's the entire structure so here we have express claim limitations which say regardless of anything else all  package held in the storage area and he says the storage area is that plain on the end and if the storage areas that playing on the end each package that is in that plane on the end is at a distinct x y location snottery package in the system greater storage area is comprised of all of this so that element requires that every package in the entire system have a unique a distinct that's why coordinate location regardless of where the picking beans is coming from or moving to and i think most important there's simply no requirement in the claims well why would a be the whole system why isn't why isn't the storage area location the individual notification at the giant system within which there are some a large number of storage areas thousands of storage areas within the storage area start thousands of storage area locations so if we look only at my except your definition of storage area location i mean i'm i'm trying to suggest to you that under his definition if we were to accept it i don't see what you're pointing to as being pretty precluding us from accepting his definition well and also i agree to that is there some documents somewhere that would have me understand that if i remember that there was a there was no dispute on this issue i believe it's also consistent with the plain reading of the of the claim  between the one ten and the two sixty seven is in the one ten patent which was the first five there was a storage area location which is where the medicines would be held and in the two sixty seven patent they narrowed the language to  shelf so all storage area location is for all intents and purposes is a rod it's a rod within a location that's found within thousands of these within a storage area so the only point that i'm trying to make your promises that were dozens of rot extends all the way out to the ends of the system mean a rod is not contained nested within so it extends all the way out to the area of the accused device that they would say come constitutes  area location well the rod certainly extends from the supply rack their short rods it's not like they expect for certain extends from the supply route but there's no requirement in the in any of the claims that that rod in any given point in time at any moment time has to be in one location as opposed to another location i get to you know understand what i'm getting at which is at the expense of that claim says i'm sorry prouty of storage area locations each location having packets holdings which is the rod his argument incites imagine it would be and maybe among the correct memory model certainly but would be at the storage area location which is the plane at the end there is a rod the rod extends into that area the claims don't require the rod be entirely encapsulated within the storage area location but just the part of well i would agree that when the rod in the accused device comes to the location where the picking no requirement that this rod actually has to extend out of the entire system in order for this picking to occur and in fact to the contrary figure twelve and the specification and the embodiments show that the picking means can move in an x y z direction which means the picking means has the capability of going into the storage area and selecting without the rod physically ever expanding there's no requirement that the rod extend from the whole system just that it extends from the supplier and i would also argue that these arguments went to the jury on the factual issues really it boils down to accessibility because every claim in this suit required the separate elements that the picking means be able to access didn't say where it had to access didn't say whether it had to be on a plane didn't say whether it could be behind the plane but it did have a requirement of accessibility and both sides presented to the jury a trial their case with their technical experts with their evidence as to whether or not these these storage area locations or rods were accessible and the jury found that the storage area locations and the rods works us and that was the result of naaman french and therefore we respectfully believe that the claim construction of dr robinson should be affirmed and that the decision of judge robinson that storage or relocation did not need to be construed as a matter of law should also be for thank you thank you that there is some kind of limitation concerning the accessibility of accessibility of the of the taking the into other things the question is how to interpret it and figure three and the other two places in the spec to clearly describe the x but i'm asking did he correctly represent that there has been no dispute but that both parties at all times have treated the storage area as opposed to the storage area location which is a separate claim term as the entire nested structure i don't remember all of th example a rod ok so when the packages say that there is a distinct x y coordinate or unique so as the x y coordinate for the rod and the packages what that means is simply that there is exactly one x y coordinate for any given package court denied summary judgment on this for exactly that reason that distinctive or unique doesn't mean that each package each radzivill different x y coordinate and i can't because everyone agrees that i'm having the same difficulty that george moore has maybe you can tell me this way yes ok so i i can understand how you can have a match like warning that identifies all of those medications that are located on that rock on that storage area but when you look at the at the accused device you have a conveyor belt and you have different medications that are located in different areas of the of the of the storage area and it's when you when you when the converter turns and it comes out to the front then it comes to the front of the picking playing and i can i can understand that but what happens to all of the medications you have that are behind the plane now i mean when you look at the at the moment that george morris is coordinate because they go out to that same physical x y coordinate they go out to it but they're not physically there most of the time because they're further back in the machine you know but they are physically in the exact same x y because e is the dimension and they're not the same and so all of those th given point in time take a snapshot or turn it off or lock it in place there's going to be exactly one of those rods at the storage and it's going to have all of the face and it's going to be exactly the same in this respect the only difference the only difference is that instead of having to manually you know take packages off of the rod and the different ones on if you want something different on the rod there is this internal conveyor belt that can switch they can move one rod to another but at any given time at each end there is one rod with one kind of package at each x y coordinate on the pickens plan and the question then is whether that internal restocking function what happens behind the second plane matters to the claims and wanted doesn't for the claim construction reasons we've been arguing but second if you look at the specifications strongly suggests that the specifics of what happens inside the surgery location don't matter any more the specifics of what's inside the computer processor and that's the first if you look at figures one and fifteen which show the entire  so the point is that everything the specifications suggest that the invention here resides in how these various purport together with the front of the storage rack not with what happens inside the white box inside the middle of storage that's not what was invented here so would be similar to if i had a pat have a patent on a car with an engine the reason being that what happens under the hood doesn't matter claims go and this brings me back to my point about why under cohesive technologies you really are supposed to set aside the accused products when you're charming the claims meaning y z in the figures is that two dimensional plane up front it's when you get into the accused products and start thinking about whether there are differences but it starts to get confusing and i think the problem is is your argument i mean it makes sense if that's not what the a snapshot at any given time there's one right there with one kind of package and that's why there's one kind of package and it's also in terms of the stick this limitation i'm talking about again everybody i don't think i don't think there's any dispute that you know you can package doesn't have a different