begin where i think this case sits which is a single and we submit straightforward claim construction issue in which the district court improperly imported extraneous limitations based on specification right that's correct and it seems to me what they just caught was really doing was not playing with or defining what that claim term was she was really mirroring the context in which that that term was in play if you guard to this patent and that seems to me a little different do you have any reaction to that i think that's that's a fair observation your honor from my perspective i think part of where we perceive the district court going astray is approaching the claim construction exercise as essentially one in which it was to list those embodied mints or things that might actually infringe the claim and create a negative limitation as to those things that would not infringe the claim we submit that that's not the proper exercise for claim construction that not all constructions necessarily especially the single term define fully the scope of infringement or philips decision and here we think this is a term that was as or as right to refer to it was out of the claims but it was added to clarify and explain a distinction between whether certain decision making took place sort of at the distribution point or at the what the patent refers to as the display size so as i'm sure the court noted during prosecution the examiner raised particular prior art reference and the applicants pointed out that in that prior art reference the decision making because this is all about how to decide what advertisements to show and targeting particular advertisements to particular consumers and the evidence pointed out that in that prior art reference the decision making was happening at the display site the context of the walker reference is conventional television so the suggestion is that it's appropriate to the meaning that was given to the well i would disagree with the factual premise of your question first i don't think that the walk of reference was strictly limited to cable t v systems that was a preferred body meant and it was described the applicant in describing the walk of reference made very clearly in the in the distinction was not that we want this to suddenly be an invention only about cable but more about conventional you're absolutely right they weren't focusing on that  and particularly if this was not a good term that was widely used then that might be the case that's not the case here walk of doesn't say that and the applicants didn't say that and indeed the evidence in the record is that this was a widely used t erm with not a specific context of cable television or conventional television but rather distribution systems much more generally that this is a term that refers not to what kind of system it's an but the organization of any kind of system or i mean occasions and telecommunications system is more generally that you have essentially a central distribution hub and multiple receiving points and that's the top ology as contrasted with for example a peer to peer distribution system where you have multiple distribution points and multiple recipients and direct communication between them the pattern is indeed talking about its apology for communications in which you have central distribution with distributed recipients the central distribution is at the head and the recipients the pattern refers to is the display sites where the consumer display sites can ask you about the specification because one of your major points is that video on demand necessarily specific only to the surviving men but the discussion of figure seven begins and column twelve this is page eighty ninety six of the record around one thirty seven and it talks about the video on demand system it makes clear that it's used in specification in column thirteen on the following page and we get to about line thirteen or fourteen here it states that the preferred embodiment of the invention involves supplemental supplementary electronics built into set top boxes consumer electronics products personal computers plug in modules for the decoder interface of cable ready products and other display devices i think this is very clear disclosure the t v set is merely an example requiring televisions no well conventional television set by itself is not inconsistent with video on demand but that was not the extent and total of the court's limits the court also referred for example to multi channel distribution that we submit is distinct from what the patent describes about video on demand systems at the big op at the beat scuse me at the bottom of column twelve starting at line sixty five in discussing this video on demand bottom and the specification states in this embody meant the optional video and audio storage device five fifty one is not required nor are a multitude of additional channels for the transport of alternative versions so the district court didn't stop just with a conventional television set we submit that limiting the claims to a conventional television set is inconsistent with the disclosure but the district court also described conventional television systems as involving multiple multiple channels of distribution the pa says that's not what a video on demand system has to be you could in theory have multiple channels in a video on demand system but you don't need them and that's not what the patent is really talking about and i think there is where we get to the point of adding these limitations that don't match up with the scope of this closure in the way that the applicants were describing their system as delivery system agnostic they talked about the structure but they didn't say it had to be cable or it had to be broadcast or it had to be satellite they reference markman which says while the patent also describes radio commercials neither party seeks to include radio applications in the construction so it's a you know the parties put it in a position of saying yeah otherwise i put in radio was you not talking about it and living on the side and now you use that kind of against or well to be fair your honor i don't i think that the district court radio was discussed in passing by one counsel during the argument but the construction put forward by appellate would have included radio in the construction of the term head and system were not purporting to talk about the exact scope of every element of the claim but head and system by itself did not exclude radio and our constructions spoke about network requires a conventional television set because the display side is always referred to as having a television well i disagree with the the further point you made about the display site always being referred to as having a conventional television receiver because the claims use the term display site to refer to the location where you're viewing it and they make the specification makes clear that that can include lots of different kinds of devices and the television set is an example in the specification but television loses so in column thirteen personal computers is listed about line fourteen in a series of items and it goes on to refer to and other display devices at the end of that sequence so i think it is unquestionably referring to personal computers as display devices in that thank you on her and made it please the court just to follow up on my colleague's last discussion i think judge thanks question was about radio not about personal computers and the citation the language shoshones directly to the question of whether  twelve the language in fifty nine to sixty three this whole section is a description of the figure seven the video on demand figure which as your honor noted includes only a and television and this language explains that the set top box is the way the signal is processed and so that language doesn't include computer it only talks about set top boxes consistent with the figure which  the language later in that description talks about the devices on which things may be viewed which is a different kettle of fish than whether the head end system requires a set top box which we think is the critical question the other thing i would say about personal computer is the argument here of course is about whether internet delivered video is covered and just putting personal computer in a list of things  influence something as broad as consumer electronics products really doesn't give any information about the idea that this could extend beyond what the rest of the specification talks about and as your are talked about context you able to use this and not be able to use your brief in your answer to the sort of thing like are we really talking about the right thing here claim construction versus will let it be seems to only be that our case law has this maximum construing terms as set forth known for most recently in the columbia university case which is that the court looks broadly at the specification the prosecution history as well as the claim language itself and we think here are going to know if those cases i mean was that i can't i i remember that case but i'm specifically but i would assume that the term that was being construed from the claims was also we look for the use of that term in the spec to tell us what that the play the real true meaning of that t i'll double check but i believe in columbia university that if there was a similar amendment to add a term right but but i think here even though the term isn't used in the spec because it was added later the spec itself tell internet delivery either way but i do think that i don't see how this is the right head and system is that is the right focus because the focus here when the walk up amendment was bade was about what you like system or the like but nonetheless how do you respond to the evidence of contemporaneous definitions that define the word head with respect to a cable system or an users for example cable networks broadcast stations so here we are with the specification that doesn't use the word and there is evidence that the word had as defined at the time of the invention include the newton's telecom dictionary which which my colleague takes issue with us prefer relying on because it's broader than just telecommunications but notwithstanding that fact it adopts the definition that we advocate so we think that but they actually definitions we set forth in our brief making clear that it's cable television systems or cable television like systems which is the price precise construction but the district court adopted here that she didn't say cable television only she said cable television or similar systems or conventional television and not internet which of course is the critical question for this for this case and so we think it's totally consistent with what i'm supposed to be here to disagree with you and somehow ten years again somebody invents a car that it didn't even exist at the time of the invention and uses this wheel they're still infringing even though the context of the use of the wheel was exclusively in the spec for bicycles right well i guess a couple of answers to that your honor certainly the question here is whether internet the livery is covered and internet the livery was certainly known at the time one of the inventors as we point out in our and many many other analysts so that's the context in which you've invented something you've claimed something and in the spec you say this is for use on conventional televisions so you can't be infringing if you muse and i don't know what the facts are i don't know whether would what the evidence is for infringement but that you can't be infringing this claim because you use it exactly as it's described in the claims in another context well i don't think that conventional television works here because a conventional television doesn't have case remember of electronics for sensors and mechanical sensors construe the claim broadly libel says too bad because we gave we what you asked for and you're not enabled or there's not sufficient written description right isn't that  certainly we certainly think that is appropriate for e and you know perhaps if the court thinks that that's appropriate maybe the appropriate thing would be to remain the case for the district court to address whether there would be a violation there if the claim had been construed as broadly as a no i think that's the critical point nothing says how it will work and if all which i recognize might be one twelve argument but i think the critical difference my question is is there anything in there that suggests to you that it would not work yes well i think the consistent references to set top boxes in all three of the embodiments as being a required element and the figures in figure four five and seven internet video on your televisions i think it in the context i think first of all the other part of the specification that we do have talks about the context of this invention being the change from over the air broadcast a few channels to the multi channel cable television vironment that seems a very important reference for giving definition to setup but also wound up as a very important definition for giving a context for giving definition to what set top box means and why it is has to be part of a head and system just to tie it back to the claim that was being construed because walk up talks about head in the cable context and in the prosecution history five but they were made and although my colleague tries them in their brief to say that we sort of backed off from them the full passage of day fourteen fifty seven makes clear that we put those arguments front and center for the very reason that we're talking about here which is the base provide more support for the context we rely on and her and her and put her her whole analysis at least in version one was her rationale all characteristics of cable or similar systems which is which is the argument and we've certainly in our brief tried to show some of that other information that was before her that really does paint the picture of a term that was taken from watch up which again with all respect to my colleagues really is limited to cable and similar systems just as the district courts through here put in here they couldn't have said they didn't have to use that term they could have said not at the display site which was the reason that the distinction was being made but they took that term because that term had a meaning certainly it had a meaning and we think the meaning was consistent with with what the specifications showed us was the cause was what this patent was getting at so it was tube and viewing video spare well i think from the procedural context this was a term that the defendants in the case proposed and suggested originally and to be fair the district court adopted a concrete structure that was slightly different than dispositive because their construction was that it was limited only to cable television systems where we're would we be for example we said ok this report focused on the long term right term focus on a misplaced site and display site requires the use of a and system maybe this was not the right construction and there should be construction of display sites the appropriate first step would be a remand for the design for them but supposedly said we don't need to remember it's clear this place like requires to be conventional television where where are we in terms of money well i think that that arguably might limit some infringement but i think there are very correctly pointed out probably not all because as you quite correctly stated there are devices that allow viewing of internet video content i'll give one example that i'm personally familiar with the apple t v device it's a box it's essentially a smaller but a set top box type device it connects to your conventional television  set today whether today's television sets are conventional and what constitutes a conventional television set might be an open question but it connects to your television set it lets you it allows you to watch video content on that television set including for example videos from tube service or from other sites and services that provide internet content including from some of the defendants that's one example i think that and in many instances of course the claims aren't just watching video from a source on a site they involve how you deliver and decide what advertisements to send to a consumer and that's really obviously the focus of the invention and of the claims about the targeting of advertisements the references to the head and  displays like we submit are really more about the orientation of where things are happening in the overall system not about limiting it to a particular specific context or a particular technology device in that respect i think the specification is repeatedly clear that it's talking about a number of systems i just wanted to reference for example i think counsel referenced some portions as well but in column four of the patent for example it talks virtually nonexistent as a means for delivery of television and video programming in one thousand nine hundred five these are talking about new technologies there's lots of references in the specification to broadband delivery these are various and multi faceted communication systems not limited to one particular kind of delivery