example of a two dimensional signal point when it describes that but it's showing the improvement in improvement in interleaving it wasn't about developing the two dimensional single point they were known one dimensional thinking point two dimensional most imaginative when they're well known that signal point and if we go on and we go into the past justification and we look at the details of pensive it takes this complicated signal processing technology and if you figure one figure one with a prior art system and figure one every single example the example that's not enough to limit you need words in effect excluded if we look at the end of figure three when the guns are discussing this complicated technology figure three figure five they began by telling us that it was an example to illustrate the pr two dimensional case now you say you argue that that means that that's because you're just referring to two dimensional being the general circumstance but by the way that that is offset with the time i've implied that you're only talking about two dimensional but if you get the other cases like jhalak like how medica there was a single invite in this were to repeatedly said well that's not enough you can't you need more than that in order to have a disclaimer in order to limit a broad claim and if you look at what's happening here figure three point but the abstract another data point as is the fact that not just the preferred environment but every environment here our other day a point at some point how many data points you have to have in fact to tell us what you meant it's a good question are there all da a points but you can not even line out the any dimensionality you can't line that out remove them from the from the patent you cannot do that we can't do that we have to fix the whole patent my papers the graph but we have to look at the four corners of the patent the whole thing and would it work as well with one dimension as with two the answer is very clear you're scrambling whether it's one dimension or two right that's this is an invention about scrambling things up so that if you lose something you haven't lost a section if you can reconstruct that you've lost one word here and one word here and one word here and one word there which you can easily reconstruct now that works this invention how ever you describe it work with one dimension as well as two or with three or with four or whatever number of dimensions isn't dimension just  did that they didn't say in a two and dimensional signal point they sent in a signal point what they said they did not disclaim any other dimension well parties in the district court agree that signal points had to be construed as it is used in the specification and that is exactly what the script did not only did they not ask d gillan if it had a place where they didn't have their own expert if it had a plain ordinary we're not talking about a plain an ordinary meeting we're asking at this invention will work with more than any two dimensional embodiment but what i'm saying is that if it does they have not disclaimed any other uses maybe they've used a broad term which can encompass more than two n dimensional they didn't write back and claim your that is the entire invention so when you do it differently right so do it with a one dimensional so the answer is yes it works why don't you answer the question because we do not use multi dimensional channel symbols at all now we did not get summary judgment on that point bloke's the district court found that there were issues of fact but we don't use two dimensional signal points we don't use single points because we don't use the way symbols at all one expansion of our colorful coder's are used to select only one signal point so the whole context of this invention everything else you have another argument maybe you need to go back and very specific it says it by interleaving technique which uses in combination that sets forth the invention the environment of the invention to any reader of skill in the art and there's only one that's submitted evidence and he was clear about this and that's in the record the experts case the environment of the improvement was incremental to a two dimensional signal point a signal point did not have a free floating meaning if signal point had a specific meaning you would have kept the other side claim language says each symbol surprise that multiple signal points because there's multiple signal points of multiple dimensions so any any dimensionality is not accurate it's not one dimension it's not zero dimension it's not a fractional dimension we know that's not right when they say anything that you now do with a man is that there's flexibility you're not limited to just two it could be four or six or eight which are the examples that are given otherwise in the country in the past and then as just random pointed out there is an ordinary reader who would never view this as anything other than an incremental improvement to do a two dimensional case beyond that what i want to point out one other thing is that everyone agrees that a signal point is a point on a identifying the signal point has no consolation whatsoever so they haven't shown any error in the district court's construction that that requires a constellation and they haven't put any evidence or shown why it matters that you change to construct it from two dimensions to permit one dimension and i think they need to come and complain about a plane constructed they need to demonstrate that things would be different if they could prove that it was one dimension and they can't show that because they can't show signal points on a constellation you'll see no evidence in this record of the signal point on a constellation and the reason is because their position is that the best coming out of the trouble is in color that pretty far upstream of the single point to have to argue that for the adjacent seat problem they have but they can see that the decoding of the v m c is upstream from that so they're not get the signal points not mapped to a constellation at that point they lose anyway and to come before the court after this reports on all this work and say we don't like the claim destruction argue about one aspect of it but not show that in the other aspect of it and on top of that totally reformulate the construction without never takes on the requirement that there be a point on the constellation their position below was that was transmitted by modulator which is the last point in this task that's what i'd call comes from the digital and it becomes a way at at the very last point go upstream to the trial isn't over they don't have signal points anymore under their construction below which is why they changed their construction on appeal so we're arguing about nothing with this one dimension two dimensional for absolute right about mr ben your car could on appeal but under the harris case under the law the trading case a slow changing by construction where doesn't change the issue the central issue was determined not to be a way of changing the central issue here  losing a lot of the focus of what was done below as you argue no less a new claim construction no i don't think it was in the focus at all your honor the focus has always been on whether the two dimension is in or out at that the only issue that that we're talking about we don't think this is a big difference so in other words you're not really giving an argument for your claim construction you're just arguing against what the court you know how we think we disrupt what the courts done kinds of things that were said with notes like patience to the record whatsoever as what we supposedly agree to what we did that it was no substance to the citations to the record there and those are all incorrect i don't find rebut them but i do want to point out that the defendant have not been consistent about paper nineteen at the morgan here the patent is how are you going to prove that we're going to add this interleaving technique j nine sixty six point seven through eight the defense playing construction breezing blow up the six to seven the combination of issue what they said was tomcat construction is not intended to and does not limit the signal point to point a two dimensional signal consolations j twenty five twenty five