oh one five dash one two nine three think gartner versus in anticipation rejection of a statutory double partington and under your view that claim would include systems in which the synchronizing element doesn't synchronize two different non would seem to be captured by five eighteen how does that not amount to let's call it a disclaimer of single element systems that would be covered under your  synchronizing imply to me that in essence what are you martin well that's i think related to it i mean you can synchronize the components but i let's assume for purposes of this question that i think that what is required to be synchronized in the last element of the claim is actually two different logic elements rather than the components that spit out a single single result of of a logical because  feel i'm interested in your in that dispute about the premise but i guess i'm primarily interested in let's assume just for her position of this question that the synchronizing element  element of the claim has to apply in order for there to be synchronizing there have to be two logical and at that point how is it that you didn't disclaim a single logic element  often true every time you want to generate a random number and the five days thereby capture the same thing because they claim generating random numbers so every single logic element in the five eighteen had to have two transistor firing at the same time or well i guess because the argument goes if the only way the logic elements can generate is by synchronizing two transistors to operate to cause the generation that they do have the same go well then that's that's a different question which was added during prosecution so we have to be sure that the language attic during prosecution has meaning we can't write it out of the claim because it is what allowed the patentability of your claim over the one  one rejection and so we have to as part of the construction consider that language and so that's exactly what we're doing whether the district court did us or a job of considering it and explaining it is irrelevant that's what we have to do in this case i understand your honor and net for each variable to generate a random boolean value and be a common synchronization read that synchronizes operation of the nondeterministic logic elements and you explain they have to be synchronized because each gets a solution to the problem requires a random value be picked for every variable in the problem and all of that language i understand them to argue  multiple elements have to operate simultaneously so you get different values for each variable at the same time but that is not inconsistent with a single if you have a single verbal single nondeterministic only articulation in the sense of cation of one to many iterated it isn't simultaneous you're only embodiment described in the spec of one to many a single logic element that produces multiple variables multiple you need to add the word synchronization if all it means is that each one of the logic elements of is functioning properly then why use the word synchronization and why even add that l doing simply as adding additional structure in order to overcome a double patenting rejection of your example but your so you're saying and and they the first patent that for those logic elements did not have to operate p granted that it's too close to what you're claiming in the five eighteen pattern for something else in there they're not say it doesn't work that's saying this is what you have to put in to make it work to save you know some things from the flames are not identical or you can just give them a word they have there or more we really mean two or more that's not happened intel is trying to argue that's what happened by the addition of the synchronisation language but that is not what happened what happened was they simply added synchronisation means stand in the district court was was either the entire file wrapper or put into the record of the district court or even the double patenting rejection to which the response was a response again the one where something is that it was chose to a had the common synchronization limitation to the rest of what is now claimed one if you page eleven of our grief sets out claim one and you'll see that the bulk of it is actual rejection is not in the appendix is it in the record in the district court it is not in the record in the district court portions of the prosecution history written there including his response to the rejection  suppose i thought that the single most important question to answer is if the synchronisation limit meant to require two logic elements in order to overcome the patent the double patenting rejection i'd need to be persuaded that that was actually necessary to overcome the double patenting rejection how my supposed to figure that out without even the material in the in in the record i think all you need to know that something was necessary something additional that wasn't already in the five a team claim or the rest of claim one in the four twenty two patent and what that must be is what looking at the language it is completely ordinary to put in a requirement that says synchronize any of the logical and all the logical limits that you have and sometimes you have one and so there's nothing to synchronize that's perfectly fine claim so the only way that i can get suppose for present for these purposes that the only way that i can get to an inference that there must be two is that it there had to be two for this element to overcome the d how do i figure that out because common synchronization must add something to the prior part of claim one and for that to be true there must be more than one element even if you talk to one of those elements off synchronization must do something more than make one element work and the record into an appendix to twenty is judge more pointed out indicates he explained that the way it does that is to synchronize plural so for it to add something it has to do it in that way the plain language of that limitation which has to have an independent meaning is what the base our case on and that is not as far as the district court  imitation is plenty it refers to omens twice in the plural it so easily that knowledge might be playing at the language of that element in the context of this claim is not plain but that limitation has to have some in it is the limitation that we are claim you have to synchronize all the logical limits you have why does that imply that you have to have at least two logic elements it seems to me it doesn't it implies it states that you have to have employer alone it doesn't go it says you have to synchronize whatever number of logic elements you have and if you have one l one or more variable that's the next step of the opponents argue if you've got if you've got more than one variable you necessarily have more than one logic element but if you only have one and have one and the invention has to be capable of solving multivariable problems that is the problem that was identified and that is certainly relevant intrinsic evidence to how to read the clue to the common symptoms ation limitations and the pointed out never describes a single watch a government what appellant belatedly points to is that in terms of the evaluation circuit which page six of his brief admits to separate from the generation circuit the suppose that i thought that the last element just taking as its is language to read with the rest simply means on its face synchronize any logic elements non determinist elements that you have tell me why if that were read to cover a circuit that had just one naturalistic logical it would not construction consistent with that being that it isn't to say in that situation the patent should be construed to apply and is that because this is that this is what i'm trying to to get at when you look at the five eighteen claim one as set out in your belief that that that whatever the proper statutory double patenting analysis is that that would still be covered by the interpretation of the amended claim exactly by opponents interpretation even and that's because even though synchronization of no sort that's nothing because it and the five eighteen it said that that the elements had to be able to generate the random really in value correct i said they had to operate clarifying your argument at the podium today to be surprising because you're basically arguing the district court got at least a portion of its construction wrong like you're arguing the district court got of course of this construction wrong there's no other way for me to interpret your argument we believe the district court should have accepted all  you just stood here and told judge o'malley there's a one to one correspondence between logic elements and variables and the district court expressed they rejected that i'm trying to take the opponent's argument which is that you don't make what is your argument i your argument at do you agree with the district court that feld one logic element can actually generate one or more variables in series and that that is the way to interpret the first element of claim one we disagree with the first record was correct when it looked to be one the language and the history in terms of the disclaimer type approach of the common suit realization limitation to the remainder of the intrinsic athens included that when you look at the didn't until you try to understand what the addition of the synchronization was with doing it seems to me actually quite plain on the face of the claim language that it covers single logical is fans out through the inverters eighty if you see one figure for him described at the top of column seven we believe all of that structure is necessary is what's specified by the common synchronization limitation and that that them simultaneously and that's that split if you look at figure four at that shown in the inverter box that structure that fanning out in those inverters we believe is necessary part of that means plus function imitation and it's admitted that that that's not present in the intel technology so we also believe that it is used in court to look at what the inventor was trying to do understand why it is logical that he would choose to add the common synchronization limitation when he faced the double patent rejection that was his way of addressing of proof as he makes very clear in the specifications of dealing with these complex  generating a random wm value for each one and then it says and each non deterministic logic element comprising the only and of seems that is needed to understand the common synchronization limitation is what clearly and as we don't intentionally there's actually a clear indication now if the prosecution history in this case had included something were dr hanger comes in and says hey i am more distinguishing for several reasons one logic element i have two that is why my pattern is different is because i have to vote only has one would be clear then what else system what we don't have that what we have where is different between the five eighteen and that's why they did this in the element situations but that's not what statutory double patenting doctrine says statutory double patenting doctrine requires is that the objection is overcome as long as the claim of language substantively is different even if the earlier one would cover some of the same stuff absolutely or honor that stuff started to protection over and by adding the synchronisation