image generated video image is something that can be viewed on the screen not brains of your data or something that would be recorded and stored and so because we can the output of a controllable image generator is video whole idea of a controllable image generator and this is kind of clear at the level of the district court that can be flexible can be something that can record that can be something that can display it can be created it can generate images for the  is generated generally terminology for careers in the preamble requiring the preamble to claim is very short and gives life agrees with the descriptions of the years one and figure two figures one use the term generating doesn't have much meaning for me and you've got to distinguish you think that figure one doesn't have any record of any relationship to claim to many of the terminology is used and yes in other words there are computers that are utilized in both situations right a computer utilized and the one to help the farm where to how to control for instance the robotic camera at the direction of the user there's a computer that's also used for your kids so there's controllers there's as signals which produce video images so if we go into the specifications the specifications of the nine hundred two columns for line seventeen through twenty nine talk to us and they tell us we say what the signals the video display or supply addressed frames of the data stored video in the video routing switch to select frame there's you have to pick one and they supply that to a large display video projector or other means for displaying in claims and again it along with what is told when we look at so when the courts a lot basically relied on the fact that controllable images generator in control of a video image generating claim three of the five one four were the same ancestry and quibbling could be considered to be the same word never disagreed with it but because claim three was agreed saying three of the five one four was agreed to be a recording device opposite is what's described of the controllable image generator in the nine hundred two claim to it says the controllable image generator responsive to the full signals which produces the video image again video images of what we've been told the controllable in a generator if you look at figures to that would be basically the display that's where the there's a disk in there that has the frames of video data stored on it and then there's control signals that come down to those displays that say i want you to access frame whatever i can so that gets access the data gets access and the problem in general produces a video image for display that's what we're told in figure two that's what we're told in claim to so you're also directed to assemblage of the content addressable video after the video is generated after the content is assembled it has to be played on a playback device like a video player and i believe the patent a display device the invention of the ninety's patent is pretty clearly of controllable video recording device that records and generates video and then the displaying function and that's that's one of the limitations of trying to but not the entirety of the description of what claims are going through or it's just not even there at all really not there i mean it starts out claim to it about a controllable camera and  figure one which ties up to it and says this is a figure that show the generation of content addressable video you start out with the content in the display that's in the camera view you then go to the second element of claim two which is a controller that emits control signals and those control signals position the robot mounted camera within the limited frame to focus on a part of the object the whole object so the display mentioned in claim two is just what we do when we look through the binder and a camera you know we see what there is that we want to take a picture of or create a video image there are signals and ways we can position and focus the camera and than the camera is what's responsible for recording the video the invention of this patent is this automatic generation using a robot controlled camera if you go back to the parent application which  dispute that claim three of the five one four patents is a is a controllable camera a video recording device and track the dependent plane claims for the comes after it incorporates claimed three  the controllable image generator of claims three is a robot controlled camera and so nobody disputes that apparently applications the same claim is a controllable video recording device and when you look at claim three you see that the first two elements of claim two and claim three are identical you know they start out with the content image the way that displays the image that you're going to take a picture of to create an image as it goes to a controller  with the image display and emits these control signals where you can position the camera in in the object to be photographed and then you get to claim three where they're very they're almost identical and i think that mr rutherford focuses on the wrong part of a certain element because the third elements are really the same they're both for a controllable image generator or a controllable video image generator which the parties agree are the same time the video doesn't change that at all claim three of the caricatural cation responses to control signals which produce frames of video data each frame determining a video image also having the content indicated by the control signals corresponding to the respect vision in the content video image so i think you know between the prosecution history and the specification of this patent and the claim language itself there really is is no doubt that this is a claim sometimes a robot mounted camera sometimes it just talks about using it to film the control signals are never with respect to a computer the words control is only used the only other context it's  is talk about a video switcher with relation to the computer there is no reasonable argument that the computer is generating video the way camera records video or that a computer is a recording device in the district either they play that video and there's no there's no tile there's nothing in the pens that's the case and the ties up the computer or the video disc players to the control of the camera which is really the essence of the controllable image generator position control that's focusing on an object and that's where the production of video image data comes in the data is where the camera what part of the object is it focused on it's just information about the video image but the picture is being taken of the video image the prosecution history as we were talking about also supports this the parent and the parents application which prosecution of the nine to the examiner rejected claim to the nine to four obviousness type double patenting and because they are the state of the same as claimed three in that respect and in fact submitted language in the patent itself as part of the prior art but i think if you look at the patent itself prosecution history this is a patent that says right in the abstract that it is for generating cont video it's not for there's nowhere in the patent that it says the invention of this patent is displaying video it's generating video and assembling the videos that generated and the some of the claims don't appear in the one nine to pass directed to generating content addressable video and the terms of this patent whenever the term generation is used is used in terms of the camp in the context of a camera it's never used in the after the video is generated had it's assembled in a way that it can be accessed and that's another part of the invention that the parties that are on this part of the case on the one to patent were not involved with there was the other patent the five fourteen patent was involved in the case that involved some other pardons the parties that are before this court now are device makers they aren't involved in that they have in fact is the field of the invention as and as at the very start in column one at line twenty six the invention relates to systems for generating and story video frames of information such as produced using video all they haven't cited to anything that supports that position it's strange beyond all recognition what stated in the specification if you go to count two of the specification after talking about  to a line fourteen judge o'malley was pointing out this is the talks about the assembly aspect in the specification starting playing forty at line fourteen come to but if you go to line twenty nine it says according to such as a robot mounted camera then generates the frames of video in response to the position control signals derived from the content video image we believe that it's very very clear what claim to is addressing we construing the term controllable image generator as a controllable video recording device because there is consistent across the patent family with the five fourteen patent it's consistent with the sion and it's consistent with the claim language there is nothing that can harbors advance in terms of trying to apply if you're to instead of to your one to disclaim that has any support and that can  that really speaks to the term control the image generators it's a control it's basically we had dance in the district court that it was a controllable camera the court struck it should be a little broader than that it's a recording device so i guess you know there may be a way of recording video that doesn't exactly use the robot mounted cameras that shown in the body but basically we're talking about generating video and the claims claims t specifically talks about figure three is that a one to two to the specification and if you look at the flow chart the third the third box down says control camera position in response to key and generate video frames it's the camera that generates the video frames to generate the video image it certainly certainly one and three are that data produces video image that data defines a video image that we will see it determines the video image and so again you claim to the one to the controllable image generator produces video images system for display blind thirty four states back around concerning how to implement these interactive display systems can be found in the nano to pass it on it is  a cross reference it was a patent is owned by the same company at that time but it is not part of this priority chain on the nine o two is where we read earlier when i was of first about the specifics of how the control signals go to the video player and the video that there were two different inventions why wouldn't you have at least responded to the examiner by saying no that that double patterning rejection is wrong i can't speak to what happened again there was expediency there was no particular reason to do that the answer the question here but i agree you need to understand the context the video image data because it is the input to the control room and thank