recipient code in addition to the servers associated with the database that contains configuration account configuration data associated with recipient code my understanding of your argument was that the term itself the functional that would immediately and they would immediately envisage a structure that's correct in this claim that's correct because it is the parsing the recipient code is a one step algorithm when the risk when the message is received by the server now in this case the message that's received by the server is known to contain recipient code which is which is important because if you don't know it's containing a recipient code you don't know what to ask for when you know that the messages containing a recipient code and that's what the claim language says parsing the receiving code from said message send message contains recipient code that is a one step algorithm you can you just get one instruction functional language and that means for forming a certain function the functional language itself connotes structure and therefore takes that otherwise concluded that that term wasn't one twelve six term because the functional language was so strong strongly indicative of structure itself that it was outside of one six the i would say if you just look at the word means in the words following it yeah no but if you looked at the words before it for example in coal versus kimberly clark it was a flourish and means the perforation mean to look right means and then you looked at the language following that i didn't see you relying on that adjective server control in front of me as i saw you looking really more at the worth our city is that right that was in one argument ye wronger that that when you're looking at the word parsing recipient code from set message messages it is defined earlier in the claims to contain recipient code so when you have a message that contains the recipient code the recipient code from message is actually longer than the one line instruction that would be used in the main the main programming languages at the time for sending messages using ip protocols so but if you're on is don't agree that just looking at that the line parsing send receive thing for you to have the server control means which denote structure in terms of software and then you can look broader beyond that where the where there's a line of cases that look about  control immediately connotes sufficient structure i don't recall if he used that language but he did say that the claim language did disclose that the software is on the arcing that the server control phrase refers to so that software on the server so you have salt from the server and this court has found that when you have software on the server is a structure now is is that sufficient structure that's a different question just like in your is roots and commands denotes software which is structure but it found that in the claim mind you language was not sufficient structure so in this case because you're talking about a server control means for parsing send receiving code from said message the server control just simply says that you're dealing with software on the server the operation is parsing the recipient code from the message now an argument made by the defendants is that while all the appellant is doing all photos doing is looking at the functional language which is not correct because when you're talking about you're not talking about a generic server you're talking about a server ascribing maclean's a server associated with the destination address expecting messages from the camera and it's able to process those messages it's looking for the recipient said from each message from each sent message you are dealing with your shipping code that you pull out of there no matter what what you do counsel said well that could be different programming languages you can choose whatever the recipient throat is the recipient it's like setting a variable in a computer program if it's set if x is set earlier in the program and you call x later you can't do anything to change what that value is so here you're talking about one step algorithm which is simply calling the data that you know is there using an instruction that is well known to a person or new skill in new york it can be provided or implemented  ordinary skill in europe there's no devising there's no crafting there's no creativity you're not coming up with some algorithm that can come up with a different answer the recipient code is the recipient code this is like in our integrations where you had two signals that were coming in and the operation was comparing the magnitude of the two signals straight forward that's with straight forward operation and then the output is well whichever one higher that determines what the output is very clear very clean operation what was the clean language and  but but in terms of here i mean you're still the presumption as was made clear in winson is just a simple presumption to overcome the presumption is just a preponderance of the evidence so when you're talking about means plus function if the word means is used it's likely on one side of the fifty percent if the word means is not used just slightly on the other side so the court in one instance that you know that looking at weather means issues that told you where the presumptions start where the weight of the evidence begins how do you think the drafters used the word means here places function format so i think here it's one of those cases where it's not used in these because there is a very straightforward operation and and defend it submitted a supplemental case algorithms that could be used it was not simple and you could have many different outcomes that's not the case here there's only one outcome which is getting out the recipient no matter how you you want to use different languages to parse it you always have the same as it occurred there are different sequences steps to open the package and get out what you want to get out of it the evidence from the expert is when you know you have a message that contains the recipient code just ask to say i want living like say the rest thank you i'm just going to complete my my thing my thought that i get something is that the if i sent a completed lego structure with the instruction manual to somebody else and i said page fifty six pull out the red block they would know a special server that was somehow different than an ordinary computer server that argument is never made before in this court and it's completely contradicted by the record you mean in this corner in this i mean in the trial court or in the briefing up until now before before appearing in this court room connect it can i ask you to i'm focused on the following we do have a case here in which the focus of attention is on words that come after the word means rather than words that come before the word means there are a variety of cases of which you're familiar with them rembrandt's others where phrases  means so just move the parsing in front of the means instead of after the main seven there are reasons to think that one ought not to be so finicky about the placement of the word as you know then why is the expert submission of dr parnassus not enough to establish that that is structure well your honor i think for several reasons to begin this court has been clear that the function itself can't be the structure and the briefing that the conclusion is there was a trial issue there on whether a word that sounds like function actually when put together with the other words is a structure why isn't there argument perhaps a little bit re characterize that same thing server control parsing means parsing sounds like function but it's not really it is in fact a structure as a unit i think in the i think in the rubric case your honor that it's the it's not the encoding that is the that is serving the structural the structure that performs that function now a couple of things to note about that first it's weight it is not the argument they made below in fact they ran away from it it's not the argument they made in their opening brief iran away from it what would they do they argue the opposite they we tried to focus attention on the word server control means they in their briefing focused instead as on the word parsing as itself connote ing the structure so i don't think they can make that argument now but even if they were to make the argument that argument would work only if the term server control itself kind of structure beyond a general purpose computer this court's cases are absolutely clear that if the hardware structure is a computer or a general computer and it is programmed with software that you've got to look to the software structure not just the hardware structure there is no reason whatsoever there's nothing in the declaration that says server control means is in fact the parsing of the server control as referring to this simple operation of you know looking at the upper left hand corner of of the package so i think you honored we need to distinguish server control from parsing that and when it comes to server control both the briefing below by fota go and the barnett declaration itself expressly say that this is not a special server control means that's new and different structure that this is a general computer so barnette a three of six so as a person skilled in the art would understand that the server control would be software on a server that performs the processing or parsing of the recipient means plus function claiming it suggests that parsing is the function if as they argued in their briefing a parser was some special structure one would have expected them to use the word parser rather than server control means for parsing in any event there is no argument made anywhere server control means is a special structure much less a special structure that implements in hardware rather than in software the person function everything in the case suggests exactly the opposite the barnett declaration says we use  the implementing structure is software on a server that performs the processing or parsing of the recipient code in their briefing at eight hundred sixty seven they made exactly the same argument so i think they first have waived any argument along the lines of what you suggest but even if they hadn't it wouldn't matter because server control means can serve as the structure sufficient to take this out of one twelfth only if those words denote some special there isn't anything that indicates that server control means to know some special structure and that's why they made the argument below and in their appellate brief that parsing was itself the structure can you step back for a minute and and  address the following it may well be that we have a body of doctrine that establishes quite strong presumptions about how when you use certain words they're going to mean a certain thing when as appears here the function that's being claimed appears to be trivially unitary nobody has different meaningfully different ideas about do it about how to do it understood i so i think you're right or that the goal was to allow people not to be able to ignore or realized how we did it and just get to anyway we did write a bit but if there's no meaningful range of how we get well i don't see in the record that something something that says there are a lot of different ways of parsing and they're kind of you know staking a claim to undefined c so i said tiredly about language not about what's beneath the line i think that i think the purposes of the doctrine are better or more important in cases where the language is critical to the operation of the invention and less important than they are but i will note that there is nothing in the record that suggests that parsing is all done in one way and in fact the record suggests the opposite so what we know about parsing is that there's a declaration from mr barnett and he sa claims that alone i think is sufficient under this court's precedent to to render it irrelevant but it is worth noting that what he actually says is here's one way you could do parsing in this language here's a different way you could you parsing in this language can i don't know if this is even an intelligent question he says here two different languages two different strings of characters constituting that different commands in those languages as you would expect different strains of characters for different commands is that really referred to t it so the answer is we don't know that that is there is nothing in the record that suggests one way or the other whether that's true what i will note just as a because this is mischaracterized a little bit in the in the briefing these are not one line code it's not that you have to write one line of code in order to parse these are calls to existing codes that are written in existing computer languages so what this says is someone has already written up  p language and we don't we don't know we don't know what we don't know how it works is that we we don't know whether whether it works in a particular way we don't know if it works in a way that's completely different than the difference the one written in p h p in different code and that to me is precisely the point the point of one beth is not just another enablement requirement well of mr barnett separation is directed to saying in effect people could figure out how to parse they could go find existing software that's been written to parse what twelve i think is directed to do is to say you don't get to claim any possible means of doing this any way of solving the problem if you write your claim it means post function format you've got to point us to the particular means that you chose and there is nothing absolutely nothing in the specification that's not what it expert declarant said all right this means for parsing limitation it's not the point of novelty in this eventually it's nothing close to that it's the most tertiary rudimentary component of this claim and by the way there's only three ways known to man to perform this parsing function x y and z and so anybody reading this limitation would just know to go off the shelf and pick x y or z and so the concern about you know i don't know preempting every possible way of performing invention it it's really not that bright it's it's just if anything capturing the three very boring known ways to perform  limitation where the point of novelty is really so in some other location in the claim i guess to follow up on judge trados question i'm not sure what our apparent rule accomplishes by forcing a patent draft or to actually have to write out and explain and arguably lard up the specification with descriptions of algorithms x y and z so i three responses your honor i think even in that hypothetical circumstance we might still worry that even though x y and z are the only ways known of doing this now somebody is going to discover an entirely different pathway and one of the reasons people write claims in that in functional for stop them anyway because then it would be i don't know ect you'd your claim would be restricted to x y and z and well perhaps under the doctor when something equivalent to but i think i think that's precisely why the and not later developed well i think that's precisely why section one twelve f works the way it does it in the absence of the section one told after all that would not be true you would be entitled to cover later developed equivalents because we test enablement in written description at the time of and they can incorporate later technologies section one twelve f though says something different it says if you're going to say going to write your length term your claim language functionally you don't get to own everything now known or later developed that might perform that function you only get to own the specific things you identify in the specification as algorithms and equivalence there of and we do that so that you can't just be lazy and decide i'm not going to tell you how i did it what one is better than the other if they were identical you could probably list them all and say you know what i'll use x or y or z i don't care because they all work the same you might end up with relatively broad claims the final point i want to make and this is perhaps the most important under this court's case law is expert testimony is irrelevant on this issue this court has repeatedly said and which issue one the question of whether there is sufficient structure but i mean  to me rembrandt and lighting ballasts say the contrary when a well so what the law in this court has drawn is between efforts to understand whether when there is structure disclosed in the specification it is sufficient for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand and implement it there you can use expert testimony and but you cannot use expert testimony to read in structure that is absent to basically say here is what a parser is which is precisely what  issue if the factual question was does this term actually connote structure is it well known as structure in the art even though it looks like it's functional that's not true here and in no less than five cases in the last five years this court has  potentially a factual component which expert testimony can be relevant so that's right and that's what we did on remained sliding down so that's right here but that but there is no testimony here that's claim construction relevant what they're trying to do is identify a structure in the testimony in the testimony that is not present or even hinted at in the specification in no overseas into it this court says that is prohibited they refer to the prohibition against using expert testimony so to and try to attack so two in default  systems eight thirty and thirteen thirty one used to for simple generator to determine whether there was sufficient structure disclosed lighting world also did the same linear tech also do the same on the second step expert testimony is regularly used even  second the defendants are arguing that the requires a specific structure in the specification or in the claim language this court has never required a specific structure the language is is there a sufficient structure and when you look at and there's never been a requirement to disclose code or particular programming language anywhere in order to fill those specific structure and when you look at the definition of algorithm which is a state series of instructions in this case you have a one step instruction one step that should be sufficient structure and then as with respect to the argument of what server control means apologize if the court misunderstands but this is just the input output objective argument that was raised not only in barnett's declaration but in the district court and also argued in the opening and respond reply briefs and if there's an input output and objective disclosing the claims there is sufficient structure disclosed thank you