the court up in the time that i've got to say after noon i intend to focus on the two clay construction issues that are presented in the briefs i'll start with the what we believe was the improperly narrow definition of the term channel map information to require for specific discrete pieces of information that are nowhere found in the claim and it secondly all talk about the failure of the courts to narrow the term of the terms identifying and assembling with respect to the disclaimer of the use of program maybe table information information is used in this patent is required to contain four specific and discrete pieces of information a programmer reference number what's called a p c r p i d a st type identifier and what are called elementary p i d s or program identifiers this was eroding a sit with the construction was offered to attempt to avoid anticipation by the a fifty five standard and there is no  claims or the specification let alone the prosecution history for so narrowing the claims if the claims had been meant to require those for specific pieces of information they should have been written that way you'll see the associates selected subchannel as seat that's out of the specification and associates a broadcast channel with and then talks about packet identifiers in the specification and it says e g for example not that's one of the things they say is required we say it can be but is not required claims and this is all remember in addition and for for example as used in specification there's another aspect of this i'm proud to tell because i'm i'm having the place controlling emphasis on but what we're trying to understand here is what is the scope of this claim what is what you're saying in response to department or that you're not disputing that it has to be able to code to him pick to information you're saying you can still to code it without operating on those for data field but i'm not sure i'm not even sure that i agree with the floor point that it has to be able to do that what do you say listen let's assume that we we said we interpreted say yes it does have to tell you that what's bet even there you still have to go well beyond it because there's nothing in this patent document that tells me that for that if decoding is actually a claim reasonable competitor a person of ordinary skill or worse a patent or look at this language would say oh you could go work on it had to supply rejection by saying well sometimes we use it and sometimes we don't but both are covered by my invention several tables were needed in order to acquire identify and acquire a particular program with the most important bench and did was take all the information that was necessary to acquire and identify this program and put it into a attorney is right there not alternatives all the time your honor you can use to channel that but technically you need information that's not within the program that able to change the channel it doesn't matter country to visit us you we think anyway that you look at the evidence but if you look at the claim first specification first you have to stand for and just look at the they're not using parts of it not in essence parts of it are being nor by the by the work around right room one of these television sets that is used by somebody actually used by somebody it doesn't use the information that program number which they actually use from the channel as part of the construction of the channel and so they're using the street type they're using the p c r or the id they're using the one i'm compute because i put your argument was that even though they disabled this that it's still in print even though it was max that you wanted to get your album that's the prob the well i would urge the court to look at the claims the claims to find the scope of the invention there's nothing in the invention about using a channel that using a p m t or using any other tape and so the fact that they're trying to look at the prosecution history and read a disclaimer when there's no link to the claim is it just doesn't make any sense and if you read the state are you are you time the infringer they use preamble it puts the invention in done even if you don't use it there's lots of things that could be done but in this case but there's no way that the owner of the t v set can under thirty people write undecided while they can't and disable the steps that they used the major minor channel overs and they use the program they use the virtual town to you can't use the television without so yes they do use it i don't think it's required by the plan but they do there's no dispute about which big eight six fifty seven is the l g s ruling that all televisions gives the programme numbers and a virtual channel table major minor challengers and the supporting evidence from dr bode is that twenty eight seven fifty nine three seven sixty it's undisputed the other thing i have to say with respect to the disclaimer argument is both experts in this case agree there was no disclaimer of identifying an assemble they need do not use the p m t if you look through the judge's ruling that page bonfire seventy three sixty three there's no mention of the use of the p n t it off anywhere what they're saying is after the virtual child table is a symbol for clearly there and after which the point the judge found in french they do other things downstream later so their contention in section one  so that's those are the key points in terms of unwinding all of us the claims require an apparatus for great amount of leads me to wonder why we are fighting so hard to construe the terms for identifying and suitable use so that they didn't require any ability to use it go peary was before the commission that just the information just had to be in there even though it was disabled and now you're telling us if i understand it that the agreed with both arguments essentially stamps but in this case there is no dispute that with respect to what the judge found infringed as to both of those steps they don't use the p m t there is no evidence anywhere in the record  what they did was after that later on after there is the inference they use things from the b m t that doesn't really have any consequence the issue infringement where the judge found the truth based upon identification the specification is replete with the uses of the terms example for example five you look at the bottom of column five it says the program specific information including a variety of data incorporates eban tejas features exemplified in believe if i heard him correctly that even if we use the p m t that then we still have a fridge if that's the case then that that comment that was made that argument that was made to