phones to communicate with the twenty one million conventional card readers that it already been deployed at merchants throughout the country the district court's construction of the phrase exhibiting a different sensitivity to electromagnetic fields to magnetic fields defeats that purpose by importing structural limitations that prevent the method from being used with the very conventional card readers with which it was designed to work how did the claims nor the specification placed structural limitations on your reader head in those conventional card readers claim one merely acknowledges that the reader has been was that the reader heads exhibit a different sensitivity to the same magnetic field and what we were referring to there was the extra magnetic fields that are being generated as part of the sensitivity when they're exposed to those fields and nd it tells us that the sensitivity issue is how the reader heads respond to xterm magnetic fields that's what the clay method is about it is about providing the ability to generate magnetic fields x terminal to a conventional card reader such that the conventional card reader can receive and interpret those magnetic fields and that's all that's required the district court's construction requires that those reader heads exhibit a different output intensity and response to the same change and applied magnetic flux that construction provides no clarity at all it substitutes out output intensity for sensitivity and then defines magnetic fields to be the same change in magnetic flux that construction is wrong for at least three reasons the st is that it introduces the notion that the sensitivity that the claim is referring to must be in response to the same change in applied magnetic flux neither the claims nor the specification refer to the reader head will recede the extremely generated field the different strengths and exhibit a different output sensitivity regardless of the structure of the individual reader had it considered in isolation this is this is just trying to can ask  this question and the to give me if i get some of the language wrong but i took it that you agreed if not if not expressly then implicitly in your great brief maybe in the blue too but he prefer around page nine that if you look at figure three b of the patent that that is an idealised form showing  distant from the production of the magnetic field and therefore one assumes in that scenario that the two heads are in fact getting the identical strengths magnetic field and finally that therefore three b requires an internal inherent structural inductance difference between the two heads  understand your your understanding of three b to b what i just said denying it by saying well that's just one of the two ways reader heads can exhibit different sensitivities and now look at for be where the magnetic field gets to ten and ten b at different times and therefore ten and ten b each experience a different strength of the magnetic field and they will then the show exhibit a different sensitivity because they're actually getting a different strength of the magnetic field and that's an alternative way that must be covered by the language but that's the three b i did not see you doing anything but except ing that the the read heads in three b had to have inherent structural inductance of differences you're correct your honor that we didn't explicitly take that point on and the reason for that is that it requires a deeper discussion of the physics that are involved in fact not even the magnetic fields that are generated are not going to be received single thing that seemed to me to weigh most in favor of the other side's point of view on this is that three b seems for all the world to be about inherently different structural features of the heads independent of the location difference with respect to the source of the magnetic field and then when the patent immediately goes on to say there's another way you can align this look at forty it merely shows an alternative location but says not one word about suddenly that now producing the required exhibited difference  completely different way even if there are inherent even if the two read heads have identical inherent structures and the absence of any description of the difference between three b and four b in terms of anything other than look you can put this in a different place seemed to me to be rather strong confirmation for the idea that everything about the description of the read heads in terms of differences is about inherent differences i respectfully disagree with part of that which is in figure four b if this statement is apart from the difference in spatial orientation of the inductor relative to the to be your  hands that is noting that there is a difference in operation and that difference in operation is due to the fact that the inductor is located in a different position and figure for b but i think it's also important to understand that the claim doesn't require the position in either three b or for b it says that you can put that adapter anywhere approximate to the card reader anywhere around it and the notion that conventional card readers exhibit a different sensitivity to extremely magnetic fields is something that's assumed in the specification that's not a point of novelty or something that special or different about conventional card readers or that was novel about this invention but was not about this invention was that it worked with conventional card readers by generating extra no magnetic fields and i've never  to say about about what the patent kind of assumes about the character of the conventional card readers the patent describes the characteristic of conventional card readers having a difference  in sensitivity as an assumed property of conventional card readers it says that conventional card readers exhibit a different sensitivity it doesn't say that that sensitivity must be due to a difference in the structure of the reader head it says they exhibit a different sensitivity to extremely generated magnetic fields and that's important because the dish records construction ignores the fact that the fields we're talking about in the claim are extremely generated magnetic fields and that the difference in sensitivity is a response to those extremely generated magnetic fields and there is a differen in sensitivity because in the claim you can generate those extra magnetic fields anywhere in proximity to the card reader and the only limitation that is that is directed to the field strength and that cla relates to the x turnley generated manotick fields and those are required only to be of sufficient strength to be received by their respective reader heads and so while playing three and frankly claim four it could be the case that in a conventional card reader you might have a different structure for the conductors you might and if you did that would give you a difference in sensitivity but you also may have exactly the same reader heads and if you fields this is just lent it but seems to me you're saying that most of the most of the reader adds in a conventional reader would exhibit different sensitivities all exhibit different sensitivities depending on where the external coil is located the difference in sensitivity is is between the two reader had that are located in the conventional given the spatial positioning of the reader heads within the current reader you will have a difference in vista tittie with any conventional card reader and the patent  explains specific examples of conventional card readers that work with the invention and there's no real dispute that those conventional card readers that there are at least some conventional part readers that have the same structural ind result and it's important to recognize that we're importing a limitation into the structure of the conventional card reader which was not the point of the invention the point of the invention was to work with all of the twenty one million conventional card readers that were already out of not just a reader head but a magnetic stripe reader device so we have both a system and then a component within it and all of the action if you will in this appeal is about the reader head but every at each stage of the proceeding when when i detect tries to take us back to a higher level introduce things like distance and weaving patients into the equation they really seem to be talking about the  magnetic stripe reader device rather than the reader itself but the claim is very specific it tells us that this reader head has a specific characteristic that the reader head exhibits different sensitivity to magnetic field it doesn't say that it's at a particular distance from a source it doesn't say that it's already there in the particular relationship it says that it exists and has a characteristic of having a different sensitivity to magnetic fields claim language doesn't actually resolve this question it's long as you keep the word exhibiting in front of the rest exhibiting different sensitivity to magnetic field could mean what two things do when in a specific location so that for example you know two students in a classroom one near the window one near the inside wall might exhibit different sensitivity to outside noise even if they have the i tend to go hearing characteristics so it seems to me that the language of the claim all by itself could be read in the way that i think i detect is reading it but might also refer something inherent in to use my analogy the hearing ability of the two students and in the classroom and that it's therefore necessary to go look at what the specification is ruminate whether we're talking about whether it is talking about an inherent characteristic or rather something that is shown when things are in a particular location  what am i missing in the claim language it's about about why you think that claim language points distinctively toward the inherent characteristic  meaning so st of all i absolutely agree with you that when you get to the specification it lays to rest any question that you have of a subject that took a big issue that it seems to me you need to address which is the whole point here is to make twenty one million conventional magnetic stripe readers work and i will get right to that but i'd like to isis pause with the claim language if i can because i detect has put great significance into the term exhibiting but what it really is talk about the sensitivity of one's hearing based on the proximity to the speaker it's a comparative it's a figure of merit it's something the tells me something about my ability to receive and decode signal and if you're going to allow an additional degree of freedom into that analysis based on the distance to the source that essentially the power of the signal that's not sensitivity that's just that just relates to your position that the the power of the si that you get so the only way that sensitivity really makes any sense in the way the experts discuss it is a gift if everything is equal in failure if two devices are compared to the same change of magnetic flux the way the court described it and they produce different outputs then that means they have different sensitivity it doesn't simply mean that they receive different different signals which is what i detect as a case and if i can then go to your question about twenty million some odd point of sale terminals we got into an into a great debate about what a conventional point of sale terminal is but the patent doesn't really allow us to have that debate so if we begin at the bottom of column five standardized devices this isn't a question where we need to go in and do lots of research the patent tells us how they are configured just above that it tells us the heads this is a fifty on the head of the conventional magnetic stripe card reader exhibit a different sensitivity to an external magnetic field doesn't say that they're positioned differently it doesn't say what they were that they were treated in different ways it says the head exhibits exactly the quantum language different sensitivity to an external magnetic field can i ask you this and i don't this may not be quite a precisely formulated question but because the record contained i s o standard generated when you swipe your card through the card reader and that the movement of the magnetic domains on the stripe set forth in seventy one and generates the magnetic field but if i can stay with that for a moment remember we're talking about a conventional card reader and i cannot card reader is actually the one shown in figure one of the pack and the figure one of the patent it tells us that all of this discussion about distances and changing the sensitivity of a conventional reader head based on on moving a source around is simply nowhere to be found and instead what you find is that the reader has in a conventional point of sale terminal are fixed right next to the tracks that exist on the credit card and my family in the in the days when when we only had mag stripes we would wear out a credit card because of the magnetic stripe  one is not exactly precise about showing let's just call it the alignment of the tracks with the reader head is something in the specs description of figure one say to track a line with with two reader heads in the precise sense that the distance from track one to head one is the same as the distance from track two to the head to  configuration of conventional leader heads and the typical convention configuration lines up track one with the track one reader ahead and track two with the track to read ahead but it doesn't give you the separation dimension per se very close is it ten microns is it fifty microns i can't tell you but it is it is intended to be very very close and if i can stay with the column six discussion we also had  h of the briefing where i detect attempts to set aside the only example that the patent he gives us of what different sensitivity really means in terms of a numeric qualification patent t told us now i think what id tech is done is they went out and found a variant of one of the terminals and they put in some extrinsic evidence sort of after the initial claim construction ruling but before the the district court had had a firm special masters report where they suggested that the one they tested showed very similar reader heads and i thought i thought that that declaration also says beyond testing or describing the particular one also since the th ninety's these devices were sold we have structurally identical reader had so they had two different declarations they had one from their expert where he tested this one variant of it was of the t seven it was a t seven p or t seven p they never really explained what the difference was and then they had a declaration from one of their executives who said he was in the business and that he believed that these were the reader heads were somewhat similar but all of that extern together and you know even if we overlook the timing of it and the fact that it was put in after the fact all of that expense again can contradict what is set forth here in black and white in the intrinsic record they tell us that these conventional point of sale terminals have leaders as with radically different sensitivities manifest in the into a twe and there's there's really nothing to contradict that on the record there is not up there's not a shred of evidence anywhere that suggests that those leader has or had different sensitivities based on the distance to the field source because as they think colleagues know thank you thank you thank you mr haynes you've got some time a few minutes conventional card readers must have a different structure but what it does say over and over and over again is that this invention works with conventional card readers available at the time does it in the  and one is disputing a mr ruffin won't tell you that the district court's construction a lot will allow the invention to work with the twenty one million conventional card readers that had been deployed at the time and communication where you actually transmit magnetic fields having different strengths which is referencing claim seven but not claim one may take advantage of some sub six in the context of the specific embodiment of selective communication that sentence is also odd because when it talks about what is typical it's referencing it says it's typically configured wide after and if you read the specification there are numerous examples of references to the fact that what they wanted to avoid was getting in the way of the conventional card reader being used with a credit card so instead you're going to transmit field outside of that slot and those of the field that it's talking about i think we heard the buzzer go off we thank both sides and the cases thank you