in our proof you show that there are at least three protocols employed by cincinnati that give rise to infringement none of which was even mentioned by the district court into it though they had  that's not the thing transmitting back the information from could be detected to the camera off the camera wouldn't be sending the information back it's a electrical line or an r f or something i mean there's some form of connection but it's not the camera doing it i to be honest with iraq i don't know where the sensors you know his sort of legal argument about him not very helpful the question is what does he know based on his examination of the accused system and whether it satisfies the claimant that we're to be fine for example on the sensor  which camp is sending the message we the play requirements that the characters say identification and under fifteen that's the way to control it learns the identification motion was that's not what happens in their system what happens in their system is that the troll or knows which camera is sending the message based on the number of it put to a switch that the with the camera using that be all of this in our research we've documented every was brief but the fact that they respond doesn't mean they're sending control signals that they could just be sending back something acknowledging receipt can vary i mean fact is that what happens in most of these alarm they call that kind of the claims of the kind of school control signals and i'm trying to define that word because the district court didn't give us much in the way of any claim construction that i can tell from this opinion right and so i'm trying to figure out what the word control signals mean and i got to the second means move l camera is moved because the result of that because what judge moore is saying and i think it's correct is that the claim requires operating the pm and what i'm saying is that to operate look at an em i write that the code extract the code or is part of that larger box which is fourteen yes and that box is part of the controller say fifty eight or so it talks about the output signals of the filter fifty four supplied to television i mean i understand the receiving and how it works you've got that line that comes in and so technically i take you at your word it seems like it's consistent with this drawing that the code signals coming in along that line it goes into the low pass filter i'm going to assume your code signals a higher frequency than your video signal right and that's how the low pass filter is going to work it's going to right wolf the point is going down that vertical why as a judge post it to be crucial so i got it so i mean the code signal i i understand how that works but in your my problem read that language and the prosecution history i just kind of shook my head and said why did they say it that way you know it doesn't it doesn't really comport with your description of your preferred embodiment how it works and then i started thinking but is it necessarily inconsistent with your preferred in body man and the statement you just made kind of leads me to the conclusion that no it's not necessarily inconsistent with your preferred environment the code could get to the monitor so the language in the in the prosecution history while it may have been a five you say in the section that there is going to be an illustrated display superimposed on the video image and appearing on the monitor it's unquestionable that that display corresponds to the second code click on the second code signal to receive not the first if you look at the if you look at the drawer the drawing generates the troll generates the second code from the first and that second code that goes up to the interface you see that you see interface fifty four hundred one of the line coming into it at the bottom that's the second column that goes here it goes to the on the first call  which is it eight fifty three the original plan had the controlling me receiving the first code signal and that was the codes for decoder getting it and the receiving means just receiving the video s into the controlling means it was amended the key point is that those remarks that were made were in the context of an amendment changing that so the first wouldn't be remarked describe it going to the control or the remarks actually describe it as going something of a pattern he viewed as important because it's changed amended their claims to specify that that's the key maybe the only change in the amendment is a seventy one compared to the original claim that a fifty three which is correct it would but there may be other issues but for now frenchmen but it would be based on the code not going to the minor in cancer that last question judge type you also need to incorporate not only the reference to the monitor but only displays it also receives the first coaster so as amended the displaying device it's pretty clear in the remarks refers to the monitor because that is how would you respond to the evidence that appellant pointed out eight hundred thirty three and otherwise that shows that he clearly did present some evidence to contradict the district court's finding when the district court found signal that is generated and sent by the camera i don't know that that seems to me to be at least an issue of genuine fact that has been raised about the accuracy of that conclusion just more i want to in response to pick up on the point you were asking about which is it's not just so that's a different issue i don't know what i would do with the control signal point and that's a different issue i want to know specifically what you could see didn't mention control thing open any of that this was not the control signal part of that was not his decision on the first point and his of code to send back and forth just that there's no other commander intros they're all operating the camera based upon that they would knowledge there is a first code there is a second code in the system it's just not that those don't form the basis for the control think no insert is kind of the reason is there are some straight messages so state or individual times individual instances where you can have a code from the camera and then a response from the controller that uses the code from the camera forever etc but the question is what are the most useful or are those used for turn the camera on or off or move the camera left or right the answer is no though there are individual instances where they're just used for down or focusing the lens that is what the specification talks about in terms of operating the camera not just turning off an alarm sensor but i want to know that there's testimony directly on this from  wrist for twenty two of the references that mr breckon gave while i was up here simply stand for the point that you have an instance of nerves for twenty two where the camera sends a signal with  is what is done based upon that nothing and the evidence in this is there is no evidence that all this can point to that there are any control signals are operating the camera pursuant to those in response based upon the address given by the camera explains that the client says it sends information the server uses the source address of the information received from the client it's the question is who's the client and who's the server and here  there is a reference in and eleven twenty eight in this manual eleven twenty that gives an example where the record which is the controller is the quote and the jones the server in other words the you don't have the you have the pm are using the everest information got from the controller not vice versa for this plane the way it's written you have to have the controller using the wrist see from the camera now he pointed to shields it's a hypothetical question that's asked if a camera sends a message to the controller and there's the first message and the plants are transaction ok and then he goes on and talks about what happens in that hypothetical he doesn't say that