and then necessarily affirm the summary judgment ruling why would we need to address the wireless lan claim construction issue i don't see how it it would impact the case that is correct that's the sort of fourth issue and so on li in the event that a man wins on one of the first three that it raised when the court need to decide wireless lan ok so i believe you're reading things correctly  whether the reexamined claims which use the term internet protocol can try to restate the issue of the case a little differently and this is how i think i understand the case the case is really about in terms of figuring out what i and if it does then i don't resolve this case and if it doesn't then that's very helpful for you is it fair to say from the thirty thousand foot level only point out to sort of things that make this unique yet to realize eighteenth he is relying on or has for theories based on five or six different statements and only the first lower layers in cats and the hidden terminal and there's the key one line in normal a t m h p l c so unlike many cases where yes maybe there were multiple statements is using either net eight or two point three and or it or two point eleven at layer two and using t c p ip layers three and four with multiple reasons but one is is that right in the title of so looking at these three statements the one at current two for winds forty one through fifty three clearly state the either net packet switch you protocol such as the i tripoli it or to that in protocol or data link layer and as i triple iaido two point three and or ito two point a level so that's an established technical understanding of ethernet and we accept that now we have to figure out what you mean by either not packet switching protocol and we have to figure out whether you said something so clear early enough in your specification that displaces and dislodge is the well established meaning of internet and so now i'm wondering when you say what you say about this enough packet switching protocol and using t c p ip or it or two point ten why can't that mean or why shouldn't it the most logical understanding of this be those standards aren't wouldn't work on the wind on the redundant i believe communication system that would be one reason number two it's simply indemnified as an example and number three other there's not something incompatible with certainly not ip is the dominant packets right protocol throughout the internet and then same thing with the same thing with the security functions of it o two point ten those can be them maybe the plane term configured to transfer information between give us an insight the court said there had to be one common protocol on each side of the mobile have station he uses the tracers information very high bar to beat it is as this court is described in the foreigner decision and i briefs remain exactly standard you must clearly and express an intent to redefine and there's an important policy behind that as well because if you have a situation such being because a person running still new york would know that ip is not ether nat but it could be commonly used as the higher layer protocols in capsulated in an ethernet layer at layer two and further the intrinsic record is also not so one sided there is for example comments as we pointed out in our brief column three lines twenty four through twenty six which talk about using wireless ethernet in wired which talk about using ether net in wireless lance which are the issues to which added to standards are operates at layer two but claim three further says we have also got to use t c p ip with your internet protocol at the higher layers and so there's a consistent view that one of ordinary skill no art would have and then when we get to the prosecution history even without getting into the issue of disclaimer there are multiple statements throughout the reexamination in which the patentee said that yes in fact let you through a packet switching protocol what i mean is what's classically understood as being ether net and for example c and t one as only for a few examples human repeatedly said no no no that's not anything that packet switching protocol and so those statements in the intrinsic record before we even get to the issue of whether they're disclaimer which they are think of packet switching protocol i think of things like t c p ip where the ether net which is going out of the data link flare i don't necessarily think of as a packet switching protocol so  that's why i'm a little confused i could understand perhaps an interpretation of it in that packet switching protocol as meaning of a packet switching protocol that's running  later to internet standard right and then that would include the c p i ping but i'm not so sure i understand that what is going on at the data link layer layer two with either net a packet switching could you explain that i mean you see what i'm thinking and how that seems to have some daylight between what you're thinking i see the distinction certainly that you're making at that level your honor however if we look at both the intrinsic record and am and zone statements below that's not not how they've ever characterized it first of all the intrinsic record throughout the prosecution of the real exams and distinguish prior art that used a different layer to protocol  a quote from a woman's opening claim construction brief says a man agrees with the peter and does not dispute that the eight o two standards are included within the scope of the term is or not packet switching protocol the age of two standing for yes yes so that is a term used in this patent and throughout the intrinsic record on what was being referred to then it doesn't exclude the possibility of running t c p ip outliers three and four absolutely not this or that why did the district court that's where the inconsistency comes with the prosecution just free during the reexamined every time i was confronted with a layer two protocols such as a t m which is another packet switching protocol and it said no no that's not anything that packet which protocol so the district courts construction does not eliminate the use of t c p ip from the claim to the contrary if t c p ip so long he is used with ether now it could infringe claim on or claim three of the and so that's where the distinction is it's really they're trying to argue they're trying to rewrite the word ether net out of out of the patent out of the claim by saying well you can use ip but use a different layer two that's not the internet and lo and behold you still along with what is the threat but it's not correct for a man to argue that internet can be simply read out of this patent and instead that claim should apply to higher level protocols that aren't you threats in that are used under over yes that was their argument but but again that's there's no evidence of that that's an argument they made here on appeal there's no evidence in the record to support that notion that they can't be used with with wands because that was not a contention that was made in that they made and developed a low and word used needs to capture the fact that this user either not packet switching protocol must itself be either net not merely minutes describing some higher layer protocol that perhaps theoretically could be carried on the internet but need not be because it can also be carried on a different layer to protocol that's what i am and is trying to read the terminals to capture ip without internet and so i think that the alternative construction i'm coming up with it necessarily requires the usage of it or to three policy behind requiring a clear redefinition in a case where as it was the case there and as the case here a technical term a scientific term is so well established in the art that we've got to have something very clear to redefine it to mean something differently and i  two different technologies and the world was emerging from emerging circuits which going toward packet switching which is which dominates the colley care as i believe on communicating over a shared medium anything that such as one of these that had anything to hide and then claim three wraps it all up claim three narrows claim one i specifically require that the packet switching protocol be it's the information being transferred by the mobile switching unit oh bob station that utilizing using the threat packets which protocol so