the next case part you meant is sixteen one zero one three cups communication is a sprint communication they please the court the term processing system that is used in the method claims an issue here defines the claim scope with reasonable certainty that's all that's required nothing more is required under one loose or any other story district court somehow got on the wrong track here and mistakenly thought that since processing system was also described functionally by the number of the various functions  system doesn't seem that central to the whole invention in this case it is not and so when you pick one term and you put all the way of reasonable certainty of the entire invention on that one a very difficult road so if you understand when i'm sad could you kind of speak to that i do your honor and i actually think that's what one of the problems here when one of the things that steered the dramas and down the wrong track processing system as a as a thing as a specialized computer that performs these functions there's nothing new about that it's described in the specific specification as a tandem c computer or a sparc station these were existing things in the prior art so there's no argument that the processing system by itself somehow distinguishes over the prior are it's in the context of this network the functions that are performed in these method claims that are what are new and so focusing on processing system is really where i think part of the problem was but this somehow the ambiguity to  one exists in terms of precisely what you're talking about a processing system is that lead to arguments that if you're trying to get more than you actually claimed and that you know there's no notice function served by this  can come up with some new way to do all of this and you'll claim that because we're in big us there's ambiguity as to the reaches the processing says i don't think there's ambiguity i think there's breath and there's no doubt that the term processing system can cover a lot of things but the claims are not that brought it's not any processing system in any configuration there are specific methods steps that are resigned and that have to be performed and these are method claims so including a processing system or saying that that's part of the environment that the processing system executes these functions there's really not a problem with breath and a purpose computer that performs these functions could meet these crimes and nothing more than that is required we don't have to have a more specific structure for the processing system to say it has to have a memory specifications and disregard any evidence because it wasn't structural there this court's guidance for example in the nautilus three case tells us that describing things in terms of function can be very informative it's discarding all that description of a function was clearly improper well i don't know when williamson was decided and passion with with how this case went up but certainly the the suggestion is that going back and forth and means a function but why would this not be properly construed as a means of well there are two reasons first of all even after williamson there is a presumption and use of the term processing system does not presume to invoke one twelve after one to assist in the process why that's right and it's not it doesn't use the word means and it's not something that invokes the second and probably more importantly both parties agree this is not a means plus puncturing term and that must mean that there is a recognized structure that a corresponds to so cox is not taking the position that this one twelve f applies we have and there's been  not as something that has the screen structural features as you seem to be suggesting you're emphasizing that these are we know their computers rather since they are most for lack of a better term the black box that happens to be the locus of the various steps that are performed but it struck me that there is no real and that they're not well for want from wrong reason they couldn't it wouldn't have been left out because we would have ended up with perhaps just a series of method climbs that could be performed by human and that certainly would be a problem or in this case of processing system but suppose then to take a step back from my earlier question that you substitute the word computer for the word processing system right but that would make any difference in the an understood structure and i mean what we're leaving out of course is the programming the special programming of the computer but i think what i hear you say is that that that's not what is describing the steps and you know and your argument i take it is that no more easily because i don't want require that's right because these steps are what make up the method that is coined in the processing system it's more than a black box because there a lot more description in the specification including identifying a particular piece of hardware that would work as well as the internal structure including the interface the translator processor structures that are specifically called out and then some spark within it right those are as i understand it not specially designated but rather more in the nature of general purpose computers and they know they are they have a particular role in telecommunications networks very specifically suited to that type of processing but this is this is pre loading the algorithm that perform that if you simply to use your question judge russian substituted the words a computer in these claims they would read exactly so but it was also mr drake's statement an acknowledgement as indeed was acknowledged below in response to judge robinson direct question that the computer in this case has to be specially program because the claims call out very specific functions and they claim that combination of functions to be invented and to be implemented by an inventive device the patent for example at the nine thirty two patent at a three fifty two of the appendix b cox both agree is the example of a process system was the point of departure for this patent it was the point of novelty in the system like was at page eighty three fifty three fifty seven column twenty beginning at line forty seven the present invention represents a fundamental and powerful departure from present telecommunications technologies by separating the communications better from the communication claims that that cost out the what is described as precisely the innovation of the invention is by councils admission nothing more than a general purpose computer even though as council also  ok and there were two arguments made one was the one the phrase itself is meaningless and the second was if it is you might be able to save it under one twelve by looking to the specification and we argue that and we argue that the specification explosion was and insufficient and that's another long story but sprints position below us we're not taking that route we're abandoning our one twelve safe harbor they said we're going to stand on the plain meaning of those freight that fritz and the and the problem is that they can't get a broader scope of claim by putting processing system in the claim itself than they would by putting it in the scope of the term is if you construed the term to be limited to what is in the specification in other words if processing system were construed to be the c c p which is what there would be a completely different case i think would still be inadequate here there's a long discussion below about why the specification simply describes more and more functionality but never gets to the algorithm that would that would not solve the problem there is that what they want to do is have their cake and eat it too they want to say processing system means any computer but you know what that means because we've got all of this description in specification but don't limit the claims in that way they can't have it both ways either processing system mean something in particular which is the c c p and then you have to evaluate it under all the one twelve of standards and you have to ask all those questions then you've got a very different system because the whole point was to come up with an innovative processing device that would let them achieve the things that they wanted to  whoever started out but but they they can't both have the but can't of have the breath of a general purpose computer supported by the specifications and refused to accept the limitations of the specifications encompass the whole the whole  guess leaving aside the whole indefiniteness inquiry if we just really with the claim construction question so processing system is not going to be defined in the abstract and normal markland proceedings it's going to be defined by how it's addressed and explained in the specification so i don't understand what you're war weary is that they're going to get to claim the you know everything in the universe outside of the specification one that's right but that's exactly what they're saying they don't want to do they want you to they what they asked her to that's for spock that's what i don't know we're not it claimed and i mean she said she couldn't construe it no no she said because this what happened she said they it's in judge robinson's opinion that the one twelve hour argument was waived she made that holder and second it wasn't preserved on appeal because the briefs at least a dozen times say that they are not relying on one twelve i'm not talking about one of them time out normal ok construction so then we come to normal claim construction and and again and again i think there are two issues the first is that nobody has advocated their position there's no record low to suggest that position the judge didn't consider that position it simply has never been on the table make three issues the second point is that they're the at this point their position about what the specification says and what the take claim means what its common meaning is is that it's a general purpose computer and in fact we agree with them because that's what the specifications disclose they disclose the tandem computer inspired computers with due respect mr jakes or not telecommunications computers are simply workstations and you have to specialized program them specially in order to to make them a able to function for this purpose you know i think your honor can certainly remain and an asteroid robinson to consider the limitation in that light but i think then the question becomes sprint's going to have to go before her and say in essence you know all that stuff we told you about having the phrase has this breath all that was because now we're going to take a completely different position that's that's just not what they argued below we made specifically the point that even when you do that analysis you don't still don't get to a structure is like this was a really patent in a sequence of paths it was the first and what happened was sprint had what they thought was a great idea about how they could organize networks and they wrote t patent to capture that idea there are a sequence of patents that they issued as that idea got worked out and some of the other patents in this case are in fact much more definite about what the processing system was and how it actually operates and what the algorithms are and those patents actually do dispose structure and actually claim structure that the the argument you're asking judge roberts and to consider is exactly the argument that was posed here they're not taking that position and which she she for that reason did not reach so it's not an issue to preserve for appeal to respect the end of the day o position i think is pretty simple especially in light of the positions that mr drake struck everybody seems to agree there what processing system means is nothing more than a general purpose computer everybody seems to question that i was discussing with mr jackson then why if you substitute computer for processing system everywhere and let's say that claim one of the three five six one  suppose the claim setting means redoing each of these things we are everybody knows what that dictates you go to the specification and suppose if you go to the specification use a computer to do it and you know we all know that there have not structure so then the question is does does a claim which has the same limitation as that counter hypothetical i posed explicit in the claim language is it which the steps are being performed you could it seems to me you could have left the words processing system out of just again to take claim one of the three five sixty one and you would have had a perfectly definite claim you might have had device what would transfer i mean how would you understand each of those functional limitations what what is what i think can be said here is again a couple things first the passages i shared with the coworker actually put the the weight of the invention in the device itself that's what the specification is about that's what it says is the invention of the fundamental and powerful departure in the specifications invention is figuring out a way to the step from always performed that there were performed in a in the devices that actually made up part of that they call the path of the telecommunication in the order to separate that functionality you have to have a new device outside of the control to perform the functions that are claims and the fact of the matter is you could certainly have a patent on that device and in fact sprint thought it was an innovative and they asked for one they could have limited it to the c c p but they didn't and they could have and they could have claimed as a simply a method we don't know about that be honest i haven't really thought it through but instead what they want to do is use a limitation that they had met has no basis essentially no constraints that they admit disclose where they admit there is no disclosure or for claiming he's a structure that captures their point of innovation and which therefore does exactly what the the the  will give you four minutes mr x think it will win or no doubt for this invention to work there has to be a specially programmed computer but these claims are not directed to a special program computer they are method claims they do climb a processing system as the environment in which this method operates but the claims are not directed to a specially program computer counsel says you could rewrite these claims as a means clause processing system as a means means for doing what the rest of the method steps and all you are doing is simply converting method claims into means claims and applying one twelve f we already know by this court's precedent that we don't apply one twelve after method claims unless they are we cited as a particular step or and that would just change everything of the spectrum at that point as to whether or not one twelve f was raised allow the district court argument they rely on one twelve after cases by analogy and they keep saying that you have to look at these cases but if we are going to do the one twelve f analysis we have to look at processing system inside it ok what's the function that is performed in the klein is that all the method steps well that doesn't make any sense but then we would have to look at what the corresponding structure is whether there's an algorithm there's an algorithm there's lots of disclosure in this plan but we've never we've never done that because it's not we did propose a construction for processing system as well and that's also on a twenty in the court's opinion sprint's proposed construction is a a  system that processes signal into a system how control that's what we propose and that's we think sufficiently definite that's all that you need for here and ultimately if want to have applies which we i don't don't think it does that's not an argument for investment these arguments really don't go to that we would have to look at what the corresponding structure is and you can construction they said it was not one twelve we haven't done that there her finding on that in this case shouldn't be given deference what we've described why it's wrong rely on our experts declaration but it's tainted by the court's other errors the court assumed that definiteness required some type of explicit structural finding that she moved and disregarded all the functional eminence so starting with that and in fact that the court evaluated this processing system in a vacuum not looking at the particular client she relied on a computing dictionary instead of a telecommunications dictionary the court cited and looked at these references and said they were extremes of governance that really entrancing evidence so all those errors and the fact that finding and given that this could be a computer which has an understood meaning the court's finding that there is no understood meaning is apparently believe would avoid infringement are those questions still open in your view i don't believe so i believe if the when we've offered the construction that would be an alternative construction