overarching care with respect to both holdings by the lower court below and that is that the lower court did not support his order with evidence specifically evidence from the intrinsic record supporting st his holding that claim twenty one dollars does not communicate structure to one of or skill in the ar if if the court reviews the claim language of twenty one dollars claim twenty one dollars if the court reviews the written description of the sixty pat the structure showing precisely how this claim to computer product works is is described what about custom receiving step columns seventeen line sixty two receiving the digital content access request skipping down being a read wri request of metadata of the digital content skipping down further the request and now we're still to finding this request to spend received the request  verification token corresponding to the digital content now the verification token is going to be further defined the verification token is handled by the user as a redeem instrument wherein the token comprises at least one of a purchase permission a rental permission or a membership permission these permissions as the written description tells one of skill in the art these are the permissions that can be customized if we go into the written description line forty seven according to another embodiment of the president mentioned the system further includes an access module the access module allows the user to define the access rights examples of the access rights include but are not limited to purchasing rights rental rights and membership access rights and now concluding my answer to your honor's question and also in column six the customisation module is taught skipping up to line twenty nine of column six message and a textural information to the user access panel of the encrypted digital media going back to claim twenty one you can see that this is what the  examples of what the purchase permission the rental permission or the membership permission could be so your i think what you're saying is that as the written description doing as well as the written description is describing the operation of the customisations much will the claim language is telling you what the him put is what the output is and so i should look at that functional language to say ok the patent owner did not intend this to be six paragraph language it has enough structure it's just i'm having a hard time seeing the structure here so maybe you can help me along here  yes well so this court is held in the apple case for example that in in the software are it's you're not going to find a lot of structure in tangential rhythm itself could be the structure correct is the struct e and so this court looks to the operation of the claim as well as the support that you get in the specification and so in the language of the apple case you look to see how how is this claim operating what is the employed what is the output and so in the example before the chord and to go to your honor's question or confusion the operation is is that you what is the input to it what is being customized and the dag that sent for a conclusion to the tag would be want to example but more broadly it would be any type of verification token can i ask you do you have do i understand correctly that the claim without any definite on three different grounds do you have to be successful on all three your that's correct do you want to talk for a minute about the method do you know digital content being one or more of the database or storage to understand correctly that your interpretation of that term is that the method data itself is a database or storage or alternatively it's information describing other data yes that's correct so the the lower court held that the that language is indefinite because it a lot of sense to one of ordinary skill in the art if if you read the entire claim so receiving the digital content x access requests from the communications console now the inventor tells you what that access request is it's a read or write question write request of medivac of the digital content in other words it's a write request of a da again this is a reference that one of ordinary skill in the art understands that mr agree she is talking about a data store or a database or storage that is all supported by numerous references not including it is part of the committee data which is the data that describes it through data instead writing it into a store data store a data store but it can be both a database doesn't have to be a physical storage unit that you can touch and feel a database is a collection of data med and data is data about dad it does some of that sit in a physical storage device yes but it written description is defining that so the concern is now you've introduced something into the claim that clashes with what appears to be a pretty straightforward definition in the written description that is one instance and the inventor prefaces that by it's defined simply if you skip down then to line thirty two dollars in the invention so now he's talking again about the invention in the invention the f b i id and mac address are written to the digital media asset metadata they're written to he's using the data stored terminology and as i said if the specification is right with this language column aid the branding request is a read or write request of the metadata skipping down to line twenty nine electronic identification reference into to storage or amanda data skipping down column twelve for example to retrieve the f b i id from facebook to cross reference with the f b i id stored in the digital media metadata the the figures point to this definition as well figure three that is starting in the record on page appendix twenty three that's the district court's claim construction opinion where it describes when the party's positions are with respect to at the bottom of twenty two dollars you'll see item number seven is customisation module and then if you look at the bottom of the box on the that you need to know there is no special structure in the claim there's no special structure in and number of eight customisation module we have six lines four of which are just a quotation of this court's williamson thanks the last two merely state during the process of putting together the claim can join to claim something specific in the specification thank you if there's anything gives a structural meaning to customisation bottle those words are all we have and the the t here on appeal doesn't have any challenge related to those those couple of minutes but well just speak to the point about waiver the our position throughout this litigation has been that paragraph six does not apply  is as i described the structure of a customisation module one of ordinary skill can find in the claim language through the operation of the claim twenty one dollars computer product and specifically that customisation module customizing the access rights as described further in the written description that as ben mr gracious consistent position