what happens if we decide one way or the other to the remainder of the case where does that initially defined category description table comprise descriptive names that have no predefined harker or relationship with such a list or each other nothing in this amendment or in the inventors or marks describing this amendment amounts to a clear and of category descriptions that are based on a field and value relationship where the field is a category and a value is an example of that category the district court that erred by adding this disclaimer to the ordinary meaning construction which the district court also adopted these amendments to the category descriptions contained in the category description table distinguish the claim from shorts in two ways but did not distinguish or disclaim any other relationship between a category description and something else so after the amendment the claims are part of the category they had a glory do you mean that i'm sorry i'm getting confused in this case by some of the terminology when you say category you use that to me know i use category the word than that the district court used to define the term field the claim uses the different term category description and the category descriptions based on field and value relationships and then the find it feel to be a category and defined a value to be an example of the category what it did was preclude relationships between category descriptions something that would describe or be an example of a category with something like a category type which is a category so an example would be a category type of something like the word language and then a category description would be something like french so in that example language would be a category and french would be an example of that category that relationship becomes excluded just press to get your view was the only thing that was disclaimed were the hierarchical relationship between one value and another between one category description and another category description that's  language in the claim after the amendment and it's a little puzzling to me i can't think of a real world example where you would have a hierarchical relationship between values question you're saying what you excluded with something that doesn't exist what we exclude is the ability for something that would be of that preclude  you just answer the question yes or no because it would be helpful to me because obviously i'm having a short shorts did not have a higher corporal a shift between different values shorts had a higher correlation between the field and the values so clearly you were trying to differentiate in the whole prosecution history the point of it was to differentiate shorts from your claim and i'm not clear on how with your characterization of the amendment the claims require these categories descriptions be defined in the category description table schwartz did not disclose the values that were predefined this created a problem schwartz's values could be just at will added to the field and so what the inventor said at three thousand one hundred and eighty six dollars and advantage of the present system is that each category description must be defined before it can be associated with a file so that a user cannot select the category description it will by not restricting a user to selecting define a category descriptions as presently claimed schwartz allows creation of one of the problems the president mentioned solves in the st instance before there ever associated with a file is something that leads to the guaranteed search result search filter can never be defined to contain descriptors that do not already exist in the indexing system now going back to the issue of fields and values by limiting category description such that they are not field and by making it clear in the claim that the only thing that gets associated with files are category descriptions which are not field there won't be fields in the file information directory and that distinguishes the claim from schwartz which requires fields in the in the node records let's have an whether the claim construction is correct it is decidedly obvious to me at least if you if you if you go back in time and look at this patent as of one thousand nine hundred and ninety two what this was designed to accomplish was pretty limited it was designed for frank candidly for people like me who were just learning how to use a word processor and trying to figure out how to take all of the stacks of stuff that were spread out over my office and put them onto a computer in a way that was int me and therefore allowed me to come up with file names that i would understand or at least my system would understand and then be able to obtain them that's that sensible fortunately for the inventor that was also precisely what shorts it already identified and so in fields and therefore there are categories and then within those you have these lists and we're not doing that what we're trying to do is create a purely nonhierarchical arrangement describing it and point of fact as field laws and this is not your standard situation of playing construction on which you have a disclaimer and then the prosecution history has a situation where the inventor in fact went back and change those specific language all the take that invention and and try to read it on to these unbelievably sophisticated systems that amazon best buy and all of the other retailers who are the defendants in this case have developed in order to allow a consumer to obtain access to the specific camera with the exact features that he or she is looking for is beyond a leap of faith it is and it's it's a it's a fundamentally different system  how are you any good let me see if i understand what your view of the scope of the disclaimer are the revision was do you think that it  effectively disclaimed systems that must use hierarchical relations ships are only systems that permit the use of such relationships i think it i think it excludes the systems that use  argue that although i don't think i need to go that far in this case because we infact obviously do use hierarchical relationships and therefore are not within the scope well whether we would have to i mean realistically we would have to in order to achieve what we're trying to accomplish at the end of the day but but i think the the bottom line as they disclaim hierarchical relationships and therefore if you use hierarchy and it's important the stipulation can't be any clearer that if you if you think of  not subject to this invention and therefore non of frenching i understand that but i what i'm trying to figure out is that whether your system is amenable to using a non hierarchical structure under certain circumstances or not presumably there could be a system in which that could be done and the question would be is that within the scope of the claims as revised i think yeah yeah i'm not one hundred conceded non infringement even under the just of course st claim construction and they come back and yellow and say no no no no no we never conceded them for different frenchmen only the st and not the nd so two parts one you haven't had a chance to  i think what happened was that the district court once once it was clear precisely what the what speed track was focused on as the and fringing actions by the defendants in this case it became clearer that what we're talking about here is in fact a hierarchical system and so at that point it became easier it's become for trouble with the with the exclusion of all hierarchical arrangements as as if having ach precisely what the inventor had in mind under those circumstances but the bottom line is that even if you go back to the stipulated construction and wal mart that still in and canada goes back to the plain language of claim one has as it applies to all of them which is that is that it takes out as having no predefined hierarchical relationship with such lists or each other that language plainly says look we were dealing with a field listen vention  and if you're using that then you've got a problem but if you're using a higher hierarchical scheme then you're in a different and a different world and that's candidly the world in which my clients operate and that's why frankly d this is eligible and the claims were analogous to the claims we have here well as the case of candidly the case that i know the very best in this entire area obviously is alice and i think it's incredibly i think this case is much easier than alice was because to me these are these are this is a much more of an abstract concept that's been embodied here and has nothing to it but i think that the case of the closest is analyzable ventures where you're just talking about labels an identifying organizing located a desire resource that doesn't change the computer the changes how the user interacts with the computer and puts frankly all of the ninety nine percent of the work is done candidly by the user in th is no because the there is not a technological solution to it it's merely a statement of outcome the problem with this patent is it doesn't it doesn't provide an algorithm or any other method for determining whether or not you're going to end up with a guaranteed result other than i suppose the sort of commonsense notion that if you create a file and put something in the file and you call for the file that will always give you something so in that in the simplest use it as i could imagine it would operate that way but there's there's no ability for somebody to have you know be on notice as to what you need to do in order to ensure that outcome so the answer to that snow that creates both the one on one problem and then it then becomes and then a complete  because at the point of novelty which is this which is this guaranteed that's the point where you have nothing but functional claiming and this court has been quite clear that you cannot get over that you cannot create the point of novelty and then turn to functional claiming as the what was clear what was amended in this claim with literally only category description having no pre defined higher cook a relationship with such a list or each other nothing else the patent talks about these category types those headings and the prop those customers is it the case are you saying that something was disclaimed here i'm saying that what was was given up was what memo to think that the category descriptions now come much comprise a descriptive name and that those same category descriptions must have no predefined hierarchical relationships with such a list of each other looking at figure three what that's describing is only the terms having those in america identifiers not the forte labels at the top of each column those are the category types so screw the category type look at those columns look at those this is what it seems to me that the amendment the discussion within the amendment and that is category descriptions and have no proof defined hierarchy relationships is that what you each other yes well it seems to me you get high or relationships between category descriptions not all hierarchical relationships anywhere else in the system such as a relationship between a so what is such a list so such a list it was agreed upon by the parties to mean the category description table the district court at appendix twenty two in footnote one explain that he understood such list to refer to the list or raise in the category description table because the definition of the construction for category description table required a list or rage so he just equated such lists to those lists or arrays of the category description table so those of the list shown in figure three in other words no category description and none of these words having the numbers next to them would be superordinate or subordinate and to any one of these lists in other words they're flat lists so you have again agreement is not the heading of the column file type is that something different that's not the category description that's the category t in those category types exist because they're used in the display to convenience the user to find the category descriptions they're interested in when they're creating their search filter that's totally different than anything certain men we're talking about the discussion between the examiner and the the inventors had nothing to do with category type that wasn't mentioned wasn't describe what was being discussed were relationships among category descriptions only and in fact category types can be required and they're allowed in claim three dependent claim three says in addition to having a descriptive name the your category description let's have the category description of further comprise a category description designation another words let's include the category type let's make it part of the category description not separate from and that's within the scope of the claims in other words that relationship the relationship between a category or a category type in a category description was not disclaimed at all by the amendment and the examiner had to understand that the amendment also disclaim hierarchal relationship with the category types at the top and isn't that part of the list would you say is this table no they're not part of the list because the table was the construction for can category description table or simply the list i'm looking at appendix thirty four dollars gives that the stipulated construction for category description table which is at least one list or a containing a plurality of categories descriptions the category types not referred to in that in that stipulated construction and in fact category types are not required by the invention ok well correct me if i'm wrong but i don't i didn't hear you responding at all to the cross appeal issue one o one my correct about that i have a few points i'd like to make if i have some time  i just want to point out that there is a improvement in computer functionality in terms of how you define a search filter that can both prevent mis typing of search queries and guarantee a search result or make sure that there is always at least one file found and that that solved a number of problems in search functionality number one there were hierarchical folders structures that had the problem where do you place the the file in the  place and then how do you locate it again and then there were the search engines described in column two at the bottom starting in line sixty two all the way up through the middle of line three i'm sorry column three that describes problems limitation yes your honor it in addition to the combination that allows for the guarantee the combination of the predefined category descriptions used in the file information directory and used to be the search filter components so it's a it's the guaranteed comes because there's all of these things that happened beforehand so let me see if i understand what  your answer is to mr philips is an argument that you really haven't shown an algorithm or any other mechanism that implements the function that you're claiming the function being the one component whatever names you give to those your argument i take it to take it in its simplest form is that your invention is to take all of the various things that were on mr phillips's desk back at the time of of this patent and put each of them each of them a name and put each of them on let's say a desktop or some early nolle set of entries is that basically what you're saying is the implementation of the idea no that's not not correct what happens here is you would create a number of implementation then other than that that was that was show me what it is that you do that's different from that and is shown in the patent to produce the result that every unit has at least one in file that's avoiding wasting time and searching for data that cannot be matched this is achieved in two ways st the user is not required to type the keywords to search instead the user simply chooses the work in random order from pick list making  typing impossible nd as the user built a search filter ition categories which would find no data are automatically excluded as pic list possibilities specification goes on from there to describe in detail how what i just described works starting at column ten line thirty seven through column eleven line sixteen and then picks up again a column twelve line twenty one through column thirteen line fifty two and i just want to make one ting that mistyping is not one of the things that is claimed and claim number one and so well that's you know i've usually discussed it's not it's not a specific advance in terms of what the claims called for and then with respect to the guarantee i would ask the court simply to read what he read out loud to you there is there is no technical explanation as to how this is achieved what is described is you put things into a file if for some reason things come out of the file that file disappear but no explanation of how that happens or what the technical advances here this to me is as as a as a fairly simple straightforward explanation of how a logical system works not a technical advance that would talk just  i don't think it has to ban the client for strictly for one on one purposes although you know in this context want to want one hundred and twelve dovetail quite nicely and it makes it a more complicated question i don't think in the ordinary one on one issue you would necessarily have to have that but again you need to have something that was very explicit in the language that would get you to the algorithm if you don't bother to put the algorithm in we don't have anything like that here we simply have the statement of a result and that's that the