matthew german for the of telling icon please the court the lower district court took the clients of the eight by three patent and changed the scope of the patent and the claims by taking what  essentially a server client as limited by the preamble of claim one and changed it to instead include not only a server but also a remote computer that has a physical monitor the visual just the district court claim construction of the term stream display as a screen visible on the client is the crux of this case that construction is erroneous based on the plain language of the client and the understanding in the context of the specification of the a p i for you to that the district court's erroneous construction of string display also affects the other client instructions that issue here today which is the commercial area and the navigation of the screen display the district courts errors in claim construction rall so extrapolated into its erroneous conclusion on summary judgment in favor of travel operation and collection of information and images from the database within the server and that collection of information is the screen display but the lower district court took that a step further and required that  screen and said look that indicates that at the screen at this remote computer however when you look at a coin language itself the screen display and conjunction those two words it means something different than a remote computer that is remote from the server what they've visual display that of the user is going to be sitting there visually perceiving the claims are just strictly limited to what the server its configuration and how it generates this information from its database when the judge in the lower court took generating the screen display and added the requirement that the be visible at the client he divorced the scope of the client from just being directed to the server aspect of the server client system and instead required that would be the client not that it would be actually transmit it so the client or that it really requires a visual perception by the user of the remote element began the server communicating to the client and interface for use requesting or so the view of the server or the service function and structure and it does have that language in there where the client is trent it's transmitted to the client but it does not require that the client receive that as  that's when you go over to claim eleven which is the method steps so generating the screen display for the client in that the first step in the minute that is if the client connection a server then is  display before the server the screen display is generated by the server it's that information what the remote computer has would be a monitor and the judge at the district court level took the screen display that's generated by the information within the server and then require that additional step which is not present in claim one and required that that remote computer actually receive this information process and present it to a client to a user of the client computer that's what the same says for a quarter for the quarter it that's since it's icons position that that isn't tensional language that the script generated screen display is for a client not that the client will actually receive that screen display as the claim is written the claims are directed specifically to the server and that servers operation the screen displaying construction is done by the lower court as the screen visible on the client presents some contradictions which highlights the error in the district court's cl instructions particularly when you get down to the graphics items or ranks to provide the appearance of the least in commercial area at least some of those graphics items having the apparent storefronts the district court took that and required that the images are arranged into a scene resembling an area having businesses so you have the whole screen display and the district court took that screen display as a visible screen on a client and then require that there's a scene which is a subset of the visible screen and that creates a contradiction when you get to the next term which is the navigation which is specifically required to be that the screen display navigable portion of the client however the district court took the scene and injected that into the next phrase as screen visible on the client that is able to permit movement through the scene so that creates a contradiction your honor where that plain language of the client's touchscreen display being navigable and the district court judge took that language and changed it to be a scene that is navigable at the screen display on this remote computer how do we even get to the point of if we were to assess your construction for generating a screen display which you're saying that does not necessarily have to display before a remote user highlights the errors that the district court made by taking screen display which based on the context of the eight five three is that information generated by the server which is intended to be transmitted to a client claim does not require that transmission of the gathered information and the district court took that and instead require that there's the screen on this remote computer and that you're going to do that if gather the information is not desist and then to work yes if the sent this invention is directed to the operation of the server there might be commercial embodiments where you would you would want to take that and provide it to a client computer icahn would ask that this court reverse each of those three claim constructions by the district court and for screen display construe that to mean a collection of data or information used in constructing a visual display that's more intentional language about where this plane might end up but it keeps it within the context that this is a server client that when you asked me just again just to be clear how can a client navigate us from display if the screen display is never communicated to the core and that's why icahn has proposed it that's why we propose that the navigation term be construed correctly as a screen display that information includes additional information and able link interactive direction at the client to reveal graphics items that placement those being displayed so the servers generating these documents such as an h t m l document which in a commercial environment would be received by a remote client computer that computer would interpret the information generated by the server and then present a us it has to have graphic images the appearance of a commercial area some of them have to look like storefront and a similar argument is you don't have those you only have them below not part of the commercial area or you have pop up that is correct your honor the characterization of the final image which was used as evidence of the operation and structure of the server and how it generated that document depicts the travel y web page just a final product as having a map view which is a map and then a list of the hotel and then the map has invented within the map as a judge construed at the scene has pop ups when you select certain spots on the map that associate with the hotels listed below well i guess the problem is their argument is that the pop ups that you're referring to are not part of the appearance graphic items arranged by the appearance of at least part of the commercial area some of those graphic items have to be store front nothing on their map view is a store front until you click on that later then you get a storefront that is not part of the commercial area so how do you even if i were to buy into all of your claim uses for auctions i don't see how that changes the result it changes the result stronger because the district court made factual finding and took it away from the purview of the jury about whether or not the pop ups that appear within the map foundries are actually a subset of the images that comprise the map as defined by the court the other issue is that the district court's determination of what the web site presented as a final product as generated by the server product they would appear just like that it would be visually perceived by somebody at a remote computer or me if they click on the correct up but the information in a building those particular pop ups for the summary judgment focused on what clause common to all the asserted claims and judge moore you've been you've been speaking of this morning and that causes graphics items arranged to provide the appearance of at least part of a commercial area at least some of the graphics items having the appearance of storefront is not a complicated clause the district court construed it to mean the images are arranged into a scene resembling an area having businesses at least some of the images having the look of the front exterior of buildings the plain wording of the claim compels the conclusion reached by the district court that is if there is no factual dispute as  items which the court described is images must provide the appearance of a commercial area or an area having businesses and and some of those graphic items some of those images must be storefronts for the exterior of businesses thus some of the graphics some of the graphic items have a dual purpose they provide the a parents of a commercial area and some of them are  district court used the term subset to describe this claim language it's a subset it's a dual purpose it's it's it's certainly clear from the claim language icon does not challenge this claim construction on appeal they don't say that the or images of the of the hotels that lost city of friends i think that would be a closer case judge rana but here but you still have to make the argument that they were ranged in the appearance of a commercial area as opposed to just simply pans in a map but if they had little bitty pictures on them and each one was a picture on the can i think that would be a closer question of infringement would depend on how it was implemented i suspect but certainly that's not the case we have here because we've got a map view with hotels listed on the bottom and then you've got a view where you click on the map and you get the images of the hotel show or if it's not on the table and really here  see it either your honor and the district court rightly concluded that they did not raise a fact issue one the only because what they have to do is you to say shalaby have to go through that limitation by limitation basis and of course what they do on that is they read out this whole notion that the graphic items that are images that create the appearance of storefront that great the parents of the commercial area have to be storefronts they just say well if there is a commercial area and they're storefront that somehow that's in for entry they didn't do that analysis and that would record of the system page twelve of our brave has this highway map in a display of search results so even if the map the highway map on the top half the screen is a kershaw lariat pearly climbs and i'm i think you're hard pressed to say it is because it's simply a highway map with pins in various locations is that something having the appearance of a commercial area i submit it's not in any event this you provides no images of storefronts that provide the appearance of at least part of the commercial area so the view the map view on page twelve cannot satisfy the claim limitation as the district or so found the other view in the record is on page thirteen of our brief he chose what happens when a user clicks on one of the p m s on the map for a hotel location what happens there is there is a pop up of a rectangular black box that appears it contains information about the hotel each writing its price as well as a picture all overlaid in a black rectangular box on top of a highway map otherwise they are black rectangles overlying a highway map if anything these black boxes obscure or detract from the appearance of the map being a commercial area even if you were to conclude that that map pops up yeah well tells us all up and down that little bay what would that be and give the appearance of a commercial area i think it might your honor if it was a map of a particular region that had listings of hotels again you'd have to have so you have to have graphic items providing the appearance of the commercial area and i think your map might satisfy that because at least you'd be focused on a particular area and you have the hotels here all you've got is a standard highway map around in this example d f w airport and there are simply pins that you don't even know what they are until you click on them and then the rectangular black box appears with the additional information i submit that the conclusion the district court raised reached with respect to both these views is confirmed by stepping back and seeing what this pattern is all about as you did judge wright in one of your first questions were not suggesting that the court read limitations in of the kleins but of course a specification can't be ignored this is a patent that describes her e a ting a yellow page concept where there is a visual a shopping area the elevator metaphor used in the patent describes moving through a virtual store there's images in the pattern of a street view stores arranged in a row the pattern aims to create a virtual reality like experience whereby the user is immersed in a visual shopping experience you can see that in columns nine calm of the patent lines thirty to fifty two that's the alleged inventiveness of the eight fifty three pa view with the pop ups can satisfy graphic items or range to provide the appearance of a commercial or with at least some of those graphic items being storefront now what what icons argument just trying to defeat summary judgment below is really a really arguing of the court's claim construction in this case of this clause that we've been discussing the graphics i've tossed that construction would have had the district court ignore the plain terms of the cl that the graphic items the images provide the appearance of a commercial area and that they include images that are storefronts now as we noted are brief icons did not appeal this portion of the claim construction so we submit under this for under this course cases that any argument about that is waived and even if the court heck even if i can had properly appealed the klein construction we think the district court got it right it's consistent with the plain language and is consistent with what the patent is trying to get at this virtual reality like situation and now the terms of the challenge my icon and argued a just moments ago played no part in the court summary judgment really made any argument it would be strange argument to make that the code is doing one thing but what the user sees is totally different that would seem to make any sense and as you point out judge that would even suggest maybe the invention wouldn't and something that is displayed which is to make visible or to make a pair it's not limited to a web page as they argue how could it mean screen display nothing about that term suggested it's limited to web pages if you look it's common sense it's also supported by the specification of the patent but neither of these terms again affects what the court decided on summary judgment which is in the record there were simply nothing to create a fact that there was that there was anything to splay to the user or in the code and so they'd argue in their brief that there was all these issues in the code somehow that there's stuff happening in the code that's different from what's shown to the user it doesn't matter if the district court found they had preserved nothing on that because they hadn't identified anything in the code that the court should look at and indeed it doesn't make any sense that the code would be doing something different than what the user sees i can fail to raise a genuine issue of material fact on essential element of all these sort claims and such a summary judgment on infringement was warranted this court your farm if the court has additional questions i'm happy to take them if not  like to hit on just a few of the points that mr mills shimer presented a second ago one of those was the inference that this is a virtual reality system i would like to direct the court to a join appendix page sixty three column eleven five through eight which is claiming nine of the eight three patents that is the only claim in the five three patent that even uses the words for trial reality or virtual reality it is also the only claim to use the word itself seen which the district court injected into claim one ten and eleven the only independent claims of the type the district court grant of summary judgment was on the basis that the parties did not dispute the final operational out of the travelocity web page the final product at a remote client here within the judge's cl order ages eight three nine and in icons response to the motion for summary judgment which is at appendix a two to three to six and that part of the record present that i can actually dispute whether or not these images that were contained within the boundaries of that map the scene as defined by the lower court were a subset of the scene or if they were as travelocity put it wholly separate but there are simply overlaid but when you get down to it there and that it within the map and that map contains the information to enable those pop ups to appear within the boundaries of those maps dr talcott also presented evidence travelocity had indicated that sucker topic tried to piecemeal these two elements that are combined for purposes of the commercial area in the businesses and dr tell thicken his initial report did look at it an element by element basis but in his declaration attached to the response from motion for summary judgment appendix eight nine seven through eight eight nine hundred dr talf explains in conjunction how those two terms are satisfied by travelocity servers whether it's the list pop up or whether it's the whether it's the list or the pop ups