six four three patent the specific limitation involved has an element of claim one it's in claim one b as we have styled that and it is quote a customer interface for indicating the status therefore it is entitled to priority and other doesn't necessarily mean that when it's construed in the context of litigation it would be construed in the way it's now construed with the benefit of the additional disclosure the issue is yes that's probably correct the later filed the later claim is is filed in the context of a different specification that includes embodiments that are not  expressly disclosed in the initial application but that doesn't change the rule as long as the the initial application provided disclosure of a user interface reference no i was talking about claim construction yes claim construction for purposes of validity is different from the type of claim construction that's applicable for determining whether or not they are entitled to pr we are entitled to priority and the claim construction we're talking about is one that would have occurred on the basis of one of ordinary skill back at the time of the parent application looking at the parent application back in one thousand nine hundred seven the issue  the claims in the claim to a display of the initial application to the later specification and under the rules established in the two cases we primarily rely on which are the ralston purina case  and the philips petroleum case united states steel case that's clearly the wrong standard the comparison has to be between what's actually claimed and what's claimed in the in the case and sue a generic user interface  and did the inventors at the time of the initial applications which we see priority have the concept of a user interface and if they did then we're entitled to priority back to that da technology but the same rule has to apply in other words the issue of claim construction with reference to the disclosed embodiments in the later specification goes to the rest of the clay and in the united states still place t defendant has taken the position that there was no support because the claim was broader in light of the new embodied myths that were included in a later filed specification the district court in that case said no that's not right and the judge marquis and his opinion  application there's also a similar holding in the in the ralston purina case far mark versus far mark the same standard is actually quoted in the united states still test case and so how would you like the court to construe the words customer intervene well custom interface that has been agreed upon thank you means an interface that enables information to be passed between a human user and hardware or software components of a system the parties have agreed to that it's referred to a page sixty five of the appendix and the judge reflected that as opinion so there's really no issue as to how that is how one of ordinary is that's the ordinary meaning of interface and the clear from the context of customer interface which is the same as a user interface and it's clear from the context and specification of the initial application inventors had that idea they disclosed a user interface in generic terms so user is a custom it looks just the same but it's the same difference and the initial in this surely there was a claim to a display but that's not the the issue is not what the claims were in the initial application it's it's whether the  specification of the initial application supports the later file claim the later fall claim just says user interface now farther down the road there at the pentagon aims there's a claim fifteen which really really what judge barb no difference between purposes of infringement and purposes of solidity right i mean that the construction is the construction well no that's not correct your honor that's the construction for purposes of validity is there's two different periods of time we're talking about and and that's different from the construction that occurs at the time after the new patent issues count council that you would agree with you that the claim construction that the words customer interface are given right original file the application for showing inventors possession there are well firstly we don't have to show that i'm asked but anyway where is the support there's plenty of evidence in the form of there's three or four statements in the abstract in the summer the invention we're going to write to them that would really be ok the first one is the abstract first providing information on the progress of the vending machine to the custard via the user interface weeks which that's not what this is the six four three patent and  invention was well known to be located in their argument that the united states steel case did not apply because it involved later developed technology and they tried to say that with that we had argued that united states deal was applicable the to this case and they said well this case doesn't involve later developed technology that boss technology that was known and so they admit that they say we can't seriously dispute that it known that a user interface at the time of this invention could occur on a laptop or other computer that in fact what the term interface was means juggler we interface was well known graphic user interface and mr morley our expert witness who was test who implies right doesn't it that some of the matter in this patent is entitled to the original filing date and some of the matter is not but the the welsh parts not you tell me which parts not there we think that there is support for every one of the claims doesn't automatically mean it's a it's new matter and think the palest accounting case says that as i remember just because it's called c r p is not of the mission that it is quote no matter which means it's not title to the priority it has as a the issue was whether there's an adequate disclosure i make sure i understand your argument on this point your argument is as i understood it once that because there's a presumption of solidity and this is in the context of a challenge to the right description it should be your burden to prove priority it's not our bridge to prove that there was inadequate disclosure in the parent specification that's that's the black letter that's what it says in the roster purina case in that case the defendant i mean the defendant to that's our choice that we're not waiving is it by not doing that the support in the initial application for the claims later assert but that doesn't mean we had as a matter that by not asserting that particular claim in the in dallas under the narrow claim interpretation adopted by george just so bell which we advocated in both courts she concluded that the pet was not in friends by distributed networks just in this appeal let me go directly first to some of the points that were discussed famous rapper with the first going to judge moore's question the claim construction is the same the loser tex case from this court makes clear that when you're looking at the question of whether there is an adequate written description under section one twelve or a clay it's the full scope of claim as construed so judge barbara starr all got it correct which was ha broadly at their urging having relied almost six actually having right exclusively on material knew better that was added in june two thousand is there an adequate written description of that claim as construed it has to be the same the six four three patent is not relevant to that inquiry and that's one of the port problems mr morley analysis six four three patents not asserted it's not asserted for  reasons it's not asserted because without that additional new material in june two thousand you could never have urged upon a court a claim construction is brought of that adopted by judge barbaro in fact if the court focuses on the user interface there are very specific references in the spec and i'd like to draw the court's attention to just a few of them to respond to this specific question about where is the discussion at page one thirty of the appendix that columns six lines twenty eight twenty nine and lines fifty nine to sixty two the user interface is specifically described it's on t a vending machine which is connected to a laptop user face is specifically identified as number five so there is no doubt that they knew about a claims fifteen actually i think makes our point claim fifteen in the dependent limitation that's added reads quote customer interfaces comprises a mechanism that interfaces with user software supplied by the customer that's what's disclosed in figure because you have a user interface a customer interface that a highlighted version of the application that highlights in yellow all this material that was added in june two thousand and seven in adopting the broad claim construction ju exclusively upon that material but he also did more when we got to summary judgment he specifically turned the power away to this lawyer and said tell me is there a specific was no and that answer is correct there is no specific disclosure of a user interface located on a customer's laptop and in fact the judge concluded  included that he could not find any reference to a user interface or a custom interface located on the customer's laptop at any time before june of two thousand now pow waste is relying upon the phillips case has made an argument that they disclose the genius of user interfaces and the unit user interface on the laptop is a species this is not a genius species having that user interface be part of the claimed invention we never admitted that there was a discussion between among us between us as to whether a interface on a laptop was old or new technology that has your honor we'll see from the brief that was in gendered by the fact that our way through this move back and forth at one point it was new technology therefore not disclose then it became old technology that was the school we did say it's old technology but we say it's not disclosed and that's why your honor it's a section one twelve written description issue but even if you were to analyze it in genius species terms it's really a species species the species just as well be described as when the technology is then such that the specific event was not available or with wasn't sufficiently developed to be described in the first filing nonetheless the concept is the same and under one twelve you don't really need to have the specific application later developed applications in order to defeat the the scope of the initial disclosures if in fact that same school is involved in the later developed technology that meets in secret your honor it does if this were a later develop court dealt with was methods of compression and there was a method of compression disclosed but other known methods were not and the court construed the claim broadly to encompass all methods of compression that a generic disclosure of something old for a specific purpose should not and cannot be broad enough to cover any use of what's old even that which is not disclosed may be first if when the court considers again the specific references to user interface you will find that it's quite different it's a user on a single unitary machine second if it were broad enough to cover that there would be no reason to have added everything that they did in june of two thousand to specifically attempt to describe something that was not on that machine and the third honor is that in this circumstance there's not a broad generic descript there is a very specific description it's consistent with a specification that has vending machine eighty times every user interface disclosed as an into all component of that and then when the court considers claim fifteen when they mention software on the customer's laptop it is circumstance there was not an adequate written description mr morley's declaration we would suggest doesn't require a different result and you're out of this i think go to part to your question his entire discussion is at paragraph sixteen which is a three eighty nine and he has just a two sentence conclusion and i think goes to your honor's question in this manner he said that one of it would have been obvious from the disclosure to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to have a user interface on the customer's laptop therefore i conclude that there was adequate written description and they were in possession of the invention that your honor not seeking to have every specification be a physics textbook that your honor is not what the law is dischord both in lockwood and houston has said for one twelfth purposes because what we're dealing with is public notice and the adequacy of that public notice the question is does the written description describe does a written description vending machine claims and on the customer's laptop the fact that it might have been obvious to a board yard is not relevant to that inquiry and that's the problem with the only paragraph that they  ninety i quite honestly sounds and all the district court characterization of mr morley's opinion i didn't think that he suggested what you just characterized it as which is identical to what the district court characterized it as so you're in good nine it was well known to those of ordinary feel as of february sixth one thousand nine hundred seven that the functionality of providing information to a customer the user interface can be provided by displaying information on a computer what was actually disclosed but instead what was well known and there is a if you're one of the cases the court cited in this context deals with things such as if you're describing circuits you don't have to scribe wires and connections and that sort of thing because that is the kind of thing that one of ordinary still new york reading the specification would know but here we're dealing with something more than a wire or a connection we're dealing with a key one of the six components of the client a key component of the claim a disclosure that puts it in a very specific spot and no disclosure that puts it elsewhere and that is the difference that's why i think judge barbara doris characterization of it i actually agree with but i think that your honor under lockwood in houston those two sentences which are the only two don't create a referred specifically to the specification of the six four three patent repeatedly referring to user interface and broadly describes it both functionally and with reference to numerous bodies so it's not correct to over get about it the fact of the matter is this is evidence they haven't met their burden and certainly there shouldn't be summary judgment maybe it should go to trial but this is a fact issue and a vast half cases ample one of the case in a brief where there was david  those are all different embodiments of an interface that he talks about they talked about at the time of the initial invention but he doesn't pay any attention to the three or four references to a generic user interface and to the depiction of that generically in figure form which just says this component is it all this invention has to have to meet this claim it has to have a user interface the user interface is clearly a generic concept this is argument that it's not generic i don't understand that here we have a generic claimed interface at the time of the patent and sue supported by specification including embodiments not expressively disclosed in the prior parent specification but the generic interface that is disclosed that is claimed itself claimed the actual claim it is supported by the by the broad statements of a user interface in the parent application essentially what the judge has done is it limited the scope of claimed one v to include or require something that it doesn't it doesn't require claim one be just as user interface it doesn't say user interface on a laptop that's claim fifteen he's infected lee conflated claims one in fifty and three to claim one is if it says the same thing is claimed for the key is what it actually said and what it says user interface that supported that gives priority and then the issue of infringement depends upon claim construction in the claim as issue which we get to in the next case so i guess that this basically covers the points i wanted to make in