in our appeal relating to claim twelve claim twenty six and the nine thirty five patent why right does not contest in its brief that it offered the for decades that the infringement analysis consists of one properly construing claims and two comparing the properly construed claims to the accused system lying rights not infringement expert dr chase spent much if not most of his testimony before the jury testifying about neither the court's claim construction nor langley it's a q system his disclaimer based opinion was an exercise in clay in construction and the trial court's decision to allow the jury to hear it was reversible error as a matter of law would be harmless when the greed w but the problem with the opinion on disclaimer is that there is no intentional relinquishment of claim school anywhere in the statements made by the inventors so and background testimony what he had done to prepare himself to give opinions he testified that he had read the file history he did not testify and he couldn't testify claim construction because the court had already construed the claims that was just background testimony the let me  specification so what chase did is he gave an opinion which contradicted that statement by a quirk the statement by the court of its own claim construction cha is inherent in every internet application sole it's just we've cited case law which says that many people claim without moral or without stating that i'm giving up on this claim peers with that that's true there is a statement in the file history in their own document when they were trying to establish that date on which they can see the statement is d m s is an incomplete solution but a statement that we start in our brief and why i did do something and in the state i made it very clear that we were not alleged that line lights system in french just because it was d n a s based but because it did have something and that's what d s plus any kid asked as well as his health did i never made the statement that suppliers and you're going to be limited to that specific inbox which included the reflect derb and the fact that things were intercepted the the trial judge reviewed better human and said space which was not true there was no statement to the effect respectfully in the bible and by the inventors at all that we gave up d n a was based nor could there be and soul what i or what level three partners in the opening statement is the same position that we took in connection with bradner the expert and in connection with the opening with what the court can describe this or peter's lecture mechanism zero not that soul or especially we believe that the introduction of that testimony basically cost in the guise of a written description arthur which i think your honor to stated your honor judge dyke has stated that there are your honor judge rader as stated in the ol case could lead to all kinds of unintended consequence we believe and respectfully suggest that this is one of those unintended consequences specifically that the introduction of their written description offense was used not to support a written description defense but rather to support a not infringement defense i think i'm going to save up to forty five thank you for my time server system what happens is when it is your router knows indeed the first requests made has nothing to do with kind it has nothing to do with the user and has everything to do only with naming the demeaning goes into the domain name system and gets put on the internet routing system and because the limelight chooses to name all or to have the same ip address for all of its domain name servers the internet automatically routes them to the closest one on the internet terms that isn't dropped by traffic as a consequence when the limelight and it goes to one of the servers that is identified usually in the same location so as a consequence of this day in a space and it was an argument about infringement was almost exclusively s because the d m s system never sees the request for our content which is what the definition of repeaters look to require it doesn't provide a or doesn't identify a server for a particular request which is what the definition of router selector back in is required and it doesn't actually select the server the user's browser does by picking one of the ip addresses in the list of ip addresses the receive an answer to  the invention with radically different it was radically different or an incomplete solution from dns that was true bob mr swartz testimony indeed was to support dr chase's testimony that a purpose he was testifying on behalf of the interpretation of the disclosure to someone of ordinary skill we are he said i have a real time example that an examiner he looked at this and said there is no disclosure of that so the purpose is that we did was you know i wasn't playing because we can say three because the district i think the first seven words of the district court's opinion are interpretations sufficient to intercept it were otherwise directly to the floor and i think the reason the district court did this is because it went through the entire process that the reflector s to follow in order to determine if for example those things in there probably are necessary or not they're not necessary for doesn't mean for example with respect to the repeater server network it doesn't matter if the reflector passes the request to the word server it's only when the reflector chooses to reflect the request to the repeater server network that matters so should we send it back and let your folks decide whether  inconsistent consistent with this court's precedent that says you're not inter you're not importing limitations from the specification if you're limiting the claims to the specification specifications close and this specification disclose construed as and this i believe is it page twenty six of them are willing a message from one client requesting a resource which is located in a computer networks such as the internet that construction specifically permits that a client request for a resource can include a request which bypasses the reflector that's the way and that is a proper construction will can you point to any of the periods which i plant request for resource in conjunction with the term a repeater server a network which is handled and handled appears within the between both of those terms it's clear that the meaning is either processed or managed if i made one claim twenty six very simple very easy point of painting was used