regardless of changes in technology used to make them in this case the district court consistently here by reading specific implementation features into the claims so that overly narrow i'd like to start a discussion with the two forty patents and highlight those errors the first term that i'd like to talk about is proxy server and the court introduced two errors into the construction there one is that the proxy server must map and translate and the second is that there has to be communication between two networks that could otherwise not communicate you have a you have a lot of clean constructions here can i move you on the one that that concerns me  it's simply has to provide the information such that you could draw a cross here or a dot but it doesn't have to be the crosshair of the dot so the latitude and longitude could be laid so does not is what you're saying the processing at the network location at the server node doesn't have to actually send the information and the graphical representation but it's since information sufficient for the mobile unit to provide a graphical representation of the server does not have construction doesn't have any reference to that i mean i see your point that the district courts may have require i frankly i don't know i have a hard time reading this reports construction to mean anything but to the extent it means that the server has it what our construction says it permits rendering and that's what has to happen either at the server or at the mobile device and so the environments render just if you just have to allow there to be a drawing made so the marker information could be simply sort of bitmap and it has to display a graphical image yes from that yes your honor i don't disagree with that so why does your construction say permits really rendering of a cross the goal representation it is there anything wrong with that that would be  would be a proper construction there are no unless there's other questions on the island six i'd like to talk about the proxy server and the two four zero  so the the district court introduced two errors into the proxy server terms and that is that there must be a mapping in translation and that the two networks could not otherwise communicate and if we read the specification in the two forty pad we just see that that's not required there is no disclaimer there is no this about there is no lexicography that causes either one of those two limitations they're not the claims they're not a specification as a requirement for i think i can and will number one is that the language that you're referring to is all within the description of one preferred embodiment of the mapping in translation point and it uses the word generally and that's in that portion of the pad which i'm sure your honour's are familiar with but if we were to look at figure five a t p x one one seven one i think that will drive you say generally but then say hands one of the functions is to write because in that environment it can do that but it doesn't have to and i can i can illustrate that for you in figure five so if we look at figure five a we see the the devices that are there in this this figure is used to describe a multiple of vitamins if we look at five zero to one of those  server in the proxy server can be directly connected or they can be in the same box so if that was if that was the case we would have direct communication between those two and then if we went to the mobile station on the other side we'd have u d p and so in that if you took  p on the other side direct communication between the servers you do not need to protocols you don't have and there you have one you don't need mapping in translation you can practice the invention in that a body image that is expressly described there and figure five a day and the patent makes a there there is it describes it does i will i will tell you it does not describe it that's way into the way i've just done it but the fact of the matter is there is discussion about the protocols but when the and the fleet server there is discussion about the direct communication between the proxy server and the fleet server and there is discussion about using u d p to to communicate with the mobile stations and that u d p isn't the only protocol that's necessary  following along with direct well it's logs point does that mean that the proxy server has to be capable of performing the translation function well i believe that it is it is one of the functions that the practice or can perform if it's claim but it's not necessary the description of the proxy server says it does traditional server processing and it can also do mapping in translation i think it would depend on what how you did the mobile stations and google makes the point in their brief that if that's only the case then you could read the proxy server completely out of of the patent but the pattern actually contemplates the fleet server in the proxy server being in the same box so the idea that it's not is acting on behalf of the two different networks that it's that it's working with and that's what a proxy does it for example five gave you my proxy you could go vote for me and that's essentially what the proxy server doesn't the circumstance for the land that it sends the fleet data out to the mobile devices for the air net it authorizes the accounts and discusses it communicates with those mobile devices so those are the things that the proxy server does that are described in the patent but are not limited to mapping  there's some discussion of protecting the identities of mobile devices but you don't see that on the two four and so i'm just you know thinking about again going back to the idea that is the true for all practical proxy really just for translation the two thousand want to two thousand and two and so i really don't think you look to the seven sixty to figure out what proxy server means in this patent with respect to the specification that we have here the consumer you know you're in  let me turn first to find my to the proxy server which the court has some questions about and try to address that first the proxy server clearly means something more than a server that's why the word proxy is used and the specification  one seventy nine column eight lines forty six through forty eight tells us that a proxy servers performs not only the traditional server processing but also serves to provide protocol conversion processing from one communication protocol to another that's point one point two is the language of the claim says this proxy server enables we wage back up to that yes so you're on make sure i'm in the right place  a map or what they'd tell us before that what the proxy server actually does it has to be different than a server the additional functions that a proxy server performs in this instance and there are different kinds of proxy servers as i think george told question  revealed but i think in this instance the specification tells us what kind of proxy server it is it also is one that enables communication between two networks the plain meaning of enables is to make possible something you couldn't otherwise do so that the use of the word enables also adds sort of come from ation that the courts construction here is correct that you have to communication protocols or cannot otherwise communicate and so they need to aeration that the terms translation and map and really describe the universe of those types of things that you would do to enable two networks that otherwise can't communicate to commute but you're putting in the two networks that can't otherwise communicate but if you have to network that can communicate cancer still be a proxy server that performs other functions you could have a proxy server that performs other functions yes that would be a different kind of progeny alert communication no i would it would not be one that would enable communications i think here and he talks about address translation or mapping that's one thing to professor to your faith talks about as one of the ways you would translate a map that would be another use of a proxy server that would fit within the court's construction but i think a completely different proxy services doesn't enable communications between two networks that can communicate would not fit within the construction and the specifications and by any means an expert in this that can use proxy servers  think that i think that is enabling the authentication not of the games the community we know that the that up that authentication is occurs in part through the account manager which is also shown in the figures as a separate box which is sometimes part of the proxy server so there's a separate function the account manager function is a separate function included as part of the proxy server but not the use of the proxy server that is that issue here as construed by the court which is the one other point i want to make is they also tell us that the proxy server is sometimes referred to as a network gateway server and the network gateway server as professor fakes planed in his declaration citing to a federal  technologies by performing the required protocol conversions and that's exactly how it's used here so we have three instances in the specification the description of how this differs from a traditional server the fact that it needs to enable communications and the reference that it is sometimes referred to as a network gateway server all three are consistent with the court's construction that here as shown in figure five is a good example it shows that there are as different protocols on the one side and on the other side and those different protocols need to be enabled communication between them which is the role of the proxy server because there we have an h t t p yes messages shown between the proxy server there and i think the parties agree that the standard of review here is whether or not the court's construction was clearly erroneous the court in that instance why money is because i think there extrinsic evidence that was relied on that's i think something that the court determined and beyond that there was in addition to the dictionary definition which the court considered there was testimony from the inventor which was cited both by google and by and wired to support their respective positions on this so the question was there were peter here that is a server node you could have another computer here that is a server node but looking to the dictionary definition which was disputed by the inventors testimony if the court said each computer needs to perform all of the functions required by the client and the difference is the inventor of that said each of the computers doesn't meet necessarily to perform all of those functions so the evident conflict between whether each computer needed to perform not need to perform all of the functions of the district court was all that in favor of the position google had forth which was that each computer needs to perform all of those functions and hence the court's instructions were trying to said something the court does not reference the dictionary in her construction so she has the the evidentiary record before which she resolved and said she resolved on the basis she said she made her determination on the basis of all of the ex evidence which was in conflict and as you know she rejected the specific instruction of each party and developed her own construction in that construction what she says is each computer needs to perform all of the functions that's consistent with reveals the factual findings without any subsidiary findings behind it the dictionary definition here says one computer and the construction is one more and the construction is one of more because i think what she was looking at was also the evidence that this server  no could be distributed in the sense or could be dispersed in the sense that you could have multiple of those in the network but each given one consistent with the claim of language which starts with a server mode and then thereafter in the claim says said server node the server note indicating that each of the separate functions will be performed by the server node that you first started with indicating all the functions need to be performed by each computer but the use of the word of a server note at the outset of the claim is consistent with the court's construction but you could have multiple of these computers each of which could perform those functions let me turn if i address that you i mean is it is because their proposed construction with the addition of graphical representation that enough for you know i think what's the difference between the two i think the difference is whether you say it's sufficient to render or  what permits render and says it's we're not going to prohibit you from rendering up all of the work can be done on the mobile device at the time these patents were filed for mobile devices couldn't do that kind of work so you don't think that that this this claim language suggests that the server asked to provide the the actual rendering the server has to provide the information that is then sufficient to render so it sends the bit math in one example it sends exactly what the graphical representation would be it tells you we were going to have you place an x going to have you place a circle over to have you place a cursor whatever that graphical information is what has to be provided by the server to the mobile device yes and i think that's where the language of permitting  t is not consistent with what was claimed to be the invention of the invention claim that will send back graphic information so that it's sufficient all that the mobile device has to do is then display the information that has been sent to it which is overlaid on a map you started images you take an image and you make it smaller you don't make it smaller by only putting up a portion of the image or cutting part of the way it is clear in three places in the pattern that all parts of the original image can be rec viewed if all parts of the original image can be recursively viewed then the reduced image has to have all parts of the original image and that's in the abstract that's in the summary of the invention that's in the specification at a one fifty seven column three lines eighteen and nineteen but we understand that that's beginning of the hierarchy is the reduced image every step down them from that it's going to have more detailed information but you're going to be able to ultimately see all of the original image that's made clear a column a few lines forty nine to fifty one which is a one fifty nine and this is exactly what the inventors testimony was as well the inventor s didn't mean by reducing it that you profit he said i mean by scaling it down or making it smaller retain the entire canvas of the image so i think the quartz construction there saying you cannot crop the image is indeed correct and let me finish if i might with the invalidity of claim seventeen and thirty one of the zero eight seven patent which it was not disputed that the preamble is indefinite the question was is the preamble limiting i think the answer to that is the preamble was limiting the phrase the mh used for example and claim seventeen the only way to find an antecedent basis for that phrase the image is to look at the preamble which tells us that the image needs to be something that is much larger than the dimension of the screen without knowing that the image is much larger than the dimension of the screen you don't really have any expression of invalid for indefiniteness there's any further questions thank you thank you very much to quickly address a couple of points that my friend made first of all the proxy server term is not dispositive of the two for a patent claim twenty seven is an independent claim that and the does not use the term proxy server uses user account through that diagrams through which diagram only when he talked about five something figure five there's again that that figure if we look at it does not require first to get a mapping in translation you have to have two different protocols and if you look at figure five eighty you can one more point is my friend raised the term gateway and dr jeff eight feet the expert referred to gateway a number of times and google actually proposed gateway in a dictionary definition at the lower court but that same dictionary had the term proxy server and it didn't have any of this mapping in translation that they want to read and they have and in that evidence here at this court i now want to jump to the zero eight seven patent and address the the reduced image from first and foremost the reduced image dispute about whether its uncropped arose at the claim construction hearing and was suggested by google with no anchor in the specification the word uncropped does not show up anywhere and what we're dealing with is not a photocopier like in their brief where you just have a proportional scaling what you have is a digital image that has to be reduced and what you do with that is you get rid of pixels you do that when you scale you do that when you cross and there's no if there are two different things they are they are but there is no requirement that for example you couldn't just crop the first set of pixels all the way around the image and then reduce what we're saying is reduction is ok the way google says but it's not the only way a one of ordinary skill in their art would understand that they could reduce the image in other ways than simple scaling and whether you agree that it has to be the whole the border around the united states it can't crap so much that means it's removed from the image that is displayed on the mobile device set you can never get back to me you know when they're when they're reduced the images displayed you can still see main that's wh i guess what i'm trying to say how does your claim construction account for the idea that you you while you can craft you not in the last have to be able to see the entire original image well a hears their version of the entire image the smaller the mentions because the issue is that it's not really the entire image because those pixels are going away one way or the other if it's skilled or if it's crux for example the pen talks about going from a belief or aiden to six forty that's the original size of the image and it goes to seventy by sixty you lose data you lose those pixels regardless if it's skilled or if it's crop so it's not always the original image and actually the specification specifically says that the reduced image is transformed and so that that image is not exactly it's not the exact same image you just have to have the ability to see the detail of the original that makes sense well it doesn't it doesn't it doesn't in the sense that the problem actually removes part of the him as opposed to reducing the detail the in a digital image when you when you do the linear interpolation that's described in the patent you're averaging pixels together so you're losing you're losing information from the image and it's the same thing with cropping you're losing those pixels that are no longer display and what our position is is that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that you could do either one of those things and in total or small the grease to get the reduced image