rush the first thing i'd like to do is to inform the court that two months ago on november sixth two thousand and eighteen the patent office issued united states patent number ten one two one two has absolutely nothing to do with the problem identified by dr reed so the problem that was solved by his inventions take a step back your honor doc dearie ends up took his mother to see the dentist enzymes invention reduce the gap between personal computers and mainframes so let me let me try or what does both gazey lack and your conception of the term field let's just assume for the second i think discloses your conception of the term field so why would that be wrong your honor just does not mention mainframes anywhere in the spec has nothing to do with the problem of mainframes being able to identify and access images i need help on your understanding with the word field because i don't see anywhere in your proposed construction of feel talking about mainframe so now you are talking about mainframes confuses me well i think everything has to be in context when you read the specification it's clear that the the goal of dr d rians was invention was to bridge this gap because mainframes had a hole in what they were able to interpret and store and that had to do with images but the fact of the matter is wrong or that insurance companies are already spent millions and millions of dollars on their mainframe computers and on the software to run them each insurance company had its own hardware and software and you know the goal of dr rhee and so was to make those systems compatible so that one form is has a i see form to be used with every insurance carrier are there any other litigations pending with respect to any other p that has been adjudicated previously by this court and in any case in texas that's still pending and in the resolution of this matter so if we were to affirm here what all pending litigation sees with respect to this family of patents well the the there's one additional pattern than one of the cases in texas i believe that litigations i couldn't answer with respect to that one lingering additional patent that would still be enforceable if even if we were firm here with the construction of the term field matter with respect to that one additional lingering patent i have to admit your honor that off the top of my head i'm not sure issues that are presented to us here certainly important your honor that the validity of the patent was was found after dr durian so obviously went out of his way to raise the issues that have been presented to the p t before the exam but for the examiner and in that race and the argument was made that they didn't play mainframes yes and it didn't apply for other reasons no doubt but certainly for that reason ok i think that the specification claims do support our interpretation of fields and so i would initially like to  and i don't want to belabor the point but you see that the first six or so in the claim deals with identifiable fields the second portion of the claim deals with the  and i think any fair reading of that claim would indicate to want to skill in the art that the identifiable fields in the fields are not one in the same and in fact it's clear that some of the information from the identifiable fields are mentioned up front is transferred into the buoy fields and this is discussed in somewhat more detail in column thirty two and that's an appendix to one eight and if you look at the lines twenty three reads it will be appreciated that the pack form when displayed on the computers screen to one to contains boxe ok next sentence goes on then goes on to describe precisely what the identifiable fields are and you'll note that here the term field is actually in quotes and it's a clear exactly the context of the invention and why it is specifically directed to the problems encountered in mainframe computing and the lack of translation between mainframes and personal computers to be field in the context well frankly that description only description i previously growth provided at two eighteen is specifically directed to a mainframe environment why should that cause us to limit it because that was the the inventor's intent and that was clearly the problem that he identified and the problem that he attempted to solve so if you're going to take out the terms from their context then almost everything is going to be can be brought enough to support unlimited prior art now if there was par art that put this in a mainframe context it would be a completely different story but dr del rio and zone appreciated that wasn't the case and if you look at your argument then there's that the term identifiable feels as used in this patent is specifically designated for mainframes and only for mainframes that's your argument i believe that's accurate you digitize a dental x ray i e convert it to a computer file that can be viewed on a monitor but transforming the medical evidence into digital form is not enough to facilitate electronic processing of claims with attachments one must also take into consideration the existing claims processing infrastructure i e the legacy mainframe that paragraph describes exactly would be nice or discloses which is  same family as those here in in three and one to nine patents in response the court from the boards on patentability findings second time i see has changed tactics arguing that fields means data comprised of label data and content data same construction that it's arguing for here we just talk about claim one and the one two nine patent which is what proposal counsel raised about there's two different usages of the word feels so how are we supposed to think about those two different message that require us to think of those two usages as being something different from each other no your honor and why not why is that why would it use it in two different ways and yet we should situations the way that the art applies to the claim to the term field is exactly the same that for example for the identifiable fields in you honour's to unexpected fifty two through fifty nine which is where the order addressed these issues the board specifically pointed to the parts of you this is for the identifiable field and specifically or users disclosure and i want to quote here in number of text fields one time for entering or viewing name address and telephone information pointing to the figure sex of where it actually shows the where are you now are you on fifty two or fifty nine so this will be  we can see here that we have the last name and we have jones so again here we have the field and here it's in a the field in the identifiable field sense would be page or forty three at line starting at line thirty four from the foregoing comprehensive system a method for managing insurance claim processing has been described the remote computer in mainframe computer where server any network connecting the computers and then for we have appendix page for fifty five inmate lantana and making a claim determination operator and workstation thirty five mini dev access to a set of rules which are contained within the mainframe seventy and it goes on and refers to the main from seventy through the discussion there i'd like to also address order to get to the requirement for label data and content data so all of that falls when it's recognized that the fields not have to be delimited eponym or character strings after going through construction discussion by stating that it was interpreted in fields and i quote for purposes and quote of its decision at the board then went on to apply borg is here first using that construction and then using i c s as construction construction so really the whole discussion about whether i c s is construction is appropriate or not and it does not even impact the ultimate outcome of this case given that the board already found even under i c s as construction that i c s loses i c s also complains that the board didn't explicitly state how it's interpretation related to the terms that actually appear in the claims identifiable fields and fields of also want to note that the board didn't need to expressly address those types of arguments by a c s the claim differentiation arguments because they weren't properly before the board they were only raised in i c s as demonstratives as yes also questions that tributes and something special to comprised of i c s argues that this court c s k s doesn't support open and the treatment of comprised of language but that's just wrong ye construction obviousness findings not only does this evidence come in the form of patents and prior references themselves but also comes in the form of extensive declarations from travelers expert dr clarke which the board credited throughout its opinions in contrast or ever even if this court was decided that yes and claim construction doing so wouldn't change anything as we previously discussed i c s wouldn't be prejudiced because the board already found that even under i c s as construction the claims are obvious and if there are no furthe i know my time is short so richly that comprise this case has absolutely no bearing here we all know that comprise is a term of hat and claim drafting aren't typically used in chemical cases and to try to give it some sort of meaning in the text of a patent specification just really doesn't make any sense more importantly i just want to emphasize that we feel like board was led astray size fits all approach a field is a field whether it's a pop up in a gooey form or whether it's a very detailed delimited string of alphanumeric characters or whether it's clearly identified