clients well what you were saying is you were not making the motion so there is nothing before the court for and the judge sitting on this so that's that's must be done with local processing and operating system resources but without installing the software application packages on the client device and we agree that it is compelling and if you look at the specification it's clearly described that the software application packages are installed at server and every instance in the detail description deals with the subject of where the applications are installed it's specific that's installed at the server and of course in the figures the only place that you see that where it's installed is is a piece which is that at the service provider side of the system very consistent and of course the fact that is installed at the server and not the client i terminating the application package is very consistent and the other injective that cited and referenced in the specification is the storage space saving authentication device and equated that with the user identification module and the inventor here said that's no good inventor agreed that kirkland disclosed is this close software packages therefore they can't they can't possibly satisfied requirement that we have a a device configured to control access to software application packages because they're already stored at the client side and of recruitment clearly disclosed at the web browser for sixty streaming media player for seventy and other software application packages are included in the client device not again underline not in the streaming server and then it goes on to say therefore kirkman doesn't suggest the combination so that is compelling disavowal it's right to the heart of the debate that we're having here and of course it's consistent with every single discussion of where the software applications are just stored in the specification there's also other sources of processing history there was a permanent storage unit of the server stressing that this is server based system and the applications are stored at the server so we submit that that process in history combined with the intrinsic record in the specification compels the conclusion and the claim itself to be sure it doesn't say not installing at the on the client device but the claim itself is set up very consistent with the specification where you have a system based on user demands and whenever a user want to execute a software application package authentic a description and then only then will the software application patches be transmitted to the client for local execution the transmission is happening from the server to the client and that needs to happen every time you want to have an execution has very  that the plane server side storage or is it your view that there was a disavow that otherwise alters what would normally be the plain language because usually  about cases like this are to overcome the plain language but i'm understanding your argument right now to be that the plain language isn't even what i think it is which is a client terminal device no i think i think it is the client terminal advice in the sense just for the reasons i stated look at the entire structure of the claim when you get to the executing step you necessarily have downloaded  that was transmitted from the server so it's very consistent with the unfriendly record so that that's the point i'm making on it so i don't i don't think this is this is something that not addressed in the claim i think the context of the claim supports the discords correctly identified the corresponding function which was to control access to one of more software applications packages but when the court went to the so that the job of looking to the specification to find the corresponding structure that's clearly linked this is where we think the errors occurred the court what the court did the court the corresponding structure of the court were looking for was the storing a subscription information and what we know from the court own holding is that the the structure that you need to find is to control access and the quote went on to say that any hard work capable of storing information would do but mended to say capable of and it has to control access and this is where we think the court was set astray only by reading out the control access function and replacing it with  it information storing prescription information could the court find corresponding structure and you know it's not surprising the court couldn't find in the sense of occasion a can any kind of function to control ac claim then the use right on occasion module that's exactly right ron is that a much better than i did but that's exactly the point something that sets a separate step in the claim count judge larry with your permission i'd like to ask a slightly different question term nonetheless needs to identify hardware in the spec and and i just with all due respect i think that's probably not a good use your time because it's not that's not right you know you know if it's not me is launching on obviously then it's a you know step of language and this course precedent we said the media rights case for example makes clear that that's not that's not true if you have i have to say this is sort of baffled me because it's just an argument i've never seen before but situated but i looked in those cases and this particular argument wasn't raised about it's not a means less functional language because it would have to say step four not mean for it wouldn't be structural it would be you know a processing or a step so what do we what do we do with that i just never heard this step toward versus mean for argument made before and it sort of caught me off guard and and i think your characterization by the way of why the examiner said it's not one thousand one hundred and twenty six is right and so if we if we if we move beyond the split functional language when no one raised this argument doesn't find us today a new and different argument that just wasn't considered by the prior panel so it can't bind us so i guess i want to go to the heart of the argument is there anything to this step even if it's a method claim and you don't use the staff for language but if you're otherwise invoking the benefit of the statute to rely on the structural part of that then then that applies and that's really the issue here license versus on demand like if i have counsel this is more you have limited time and i understand your arguments on your appeal but i really want you to address samsung's cross appeal on indefinite yes can you please start there counsel i need i need to stay focused on judge that question though you didn't answer it you sort of answered it but didn't say where and how i understand your argument is that you don't think this should fall under one thousand one hundred and twenty six and therefore you don't need to disclose argument that algorithm is contained within the claim language itself and if your argument is i think yes is how you answered him then tell me where or tell me where precisely in the claim language i am to find the algorithm that explains to you how to control claim term where is the particular structure where is the algorithm which will control the access that's what i want to know not storage access where where is the control access  language then you lose and your claim is indefinite because i think you know i couldn't find anything in your brief and i believe just i can i have now asked you this four separate times and you keep wanting to retreat to this just isn't one till six and that's fine and if you're right on that i don't have to worry about it but i want you to know that you haven't answered our question at all since this is a method claim could implicate one thousand one hundred and twenty six and therefore this isn't even something that falls in one hundred and six i promise you you get a chance to address that so i want you to go ahead and do that now  claim is part of the spec so if if the structure were contained within the claim that would satisfy it would you please instead talk about the step for versus means for argument i just had never seen this before i see it now in the m p b quite clearly and and perhaps it's wrong perhaps there can be a means for element within a method claim and what you're arguing here because you're not you're not saying this is a step for right that's correct but this is within a method claim nonetheless so you're arguing there can be a means for implication in a message claim correct that's correct and again this is the case law is clear on that i mean that we cited media rights case which actually use i i don't know that the court need to go that far in the sense that step for man which is you know it's not used here in this instance and i don't need the court need to go that far but but this examiner said that this claim term term so what you know something has to be corrected right for you to prevail i have to tell the p t o or at least tell this examiner that his either his interpretation of the m p p is wrong or what what what how do we address conclusion in this case because it wasn't just one examiner right this went up the chain to a primary and everybody else and they all sort of signed off on this concept so what do i do with that if if you were right that correct well