mean in general terms the patents and claims that issued on this appeal relate to methods that allow players at pre selected gaming devices to win something known as bonuses the share specification for the two plants at issue are obviously very lengthy for the portions that relate to the only thing products at issue in this case in the from missing features in the claim or are rather limited i think it's important to note by way of background the two patents that issue here come from a very large patent family last time i checked twenty four patents as it is in the record has issued have issued from that family over five hundred claims which you know help i don't want to suggest that i'm about to patent attorney the patent he's tried to claim bonus ing features in every which way lots of different terms trying to capture the can't same concept with respect to the term while it's a classic example where the  ease meant something else they used another phrase one or more than one classic example they should be limited to that specific language that's exactly what the claim says that's exactly the notice but i think that's laurie's point is they used only one elsewhere so only one means one and only one even though it's a comprising claim and i may be misunderstanding the point that i was asking you to address but yet this takes a more than or at least one elsewhere but what about the only one distinction well your honor i don't i don't mean to suggest that there is perfection in the way these claims were drafted certainly only one nobody can say that that means more than the my point is that it says to one or be along just as with only one those are limited to one the panties again where they want to expand beyond want to use phrases like at least so long no difference is completely clear that they were talking about  what even if we were to agree with your position that one means distinctly one or only one why isn't it still correct to say looking at the claim language issue you command over a network to one priest like the gaming device paying at said one gaming device one command one payment that that doesn't mean there couldn't be other commands to other computers than other payments what happens outside the umbrella of the claim is is irrelevant but one command one payment meaning one command could not tell twenty computers to issue payments that's the one so why are we still giving very much life and meaning very much correct construction to the wor sense that this is not a situation where a party is trying to add other elements to a method claim and trying to avoid infringement by saying what we do more than what's just from the claim we do not only even see we do you know it's not the case here says to one you can't use the comprising case law to expand this particular limitation restrictive language and say well we can use comprising so one or only one can mean more than one that's the comprising in terms of your point your honor with respect to choosing that isolated instance they are applying this particular claim to a gaming system and method that that delivers reconfiguration  commands as the court found but if it delivers things to multiple machines that's this particular type of bonus it's called power rewards the the reason we raise a son on appeal is because power ward simply does not work in delivering something to one and only one gaming device it's on the beach maybe i misunderstand the technology and you can certainly explain it to me but when there is in the power word situation it's a single command that goes to a single computer to pay out now there might be multiple commands issued to multiple computers but each command that's issued to a specific machine is is only being carried out by that machine and payment is only being made by that machine isn't that the way the system wired well run or just step back to make myself clear there is a an operator at the back end the back room of the casino that sets up these bonuses creatures they sit down with at a terminal decide well i'm going to decide who's going to participate in this particular bonus they pre select less than all the gaming devices on the floor in some way they may decide everybody who has a certain gold player card is going to participate in this by i'm missing a bit when they put the corridor to to deal with each of those individuals yes of course they have to communicate the individual in other words that particular player is going to play a certain amount and do something that would allow them to get a power wards bonus for that reason that communication has to be unique but the claim is directed to that bonus feature as a whole that's just the application of that system now that name says issuing a command over a network to one of said pre selecting game bice's response is to determine the best paying at said one gaming device so why isn't the one directed to one command one payment as opposed to only one gaming device could ever receive any commands i mean it seems that the linking of the word one between the two different elements to me i think the best argument as i understand it is that that means one command one payment not one command is all it can ever be issue correspondence and that's why it appears in the two elements within basis that's their argument as i understand it and and i guess i'm just curious if you could just really precisely explain why that isn't correct well you run or if you start with that with the top of the class it talks about pre selecting less than all of the gaming devices some set some subset of gaming devices and to all the pre selected devices that have been awarded those points yes it doesn't want to time there's no way to a point but it's our claim construction position that the way this claim is structured there is one winning player there is one player that earns that award it says to one that's the way this folderol bonus thing scheme is covered by this claim is laid out it's not a system where you're pr that order we say as they learn more about our products they don't they don't rely on it for anything it's squarely relevant to at least two of the issues here and again predecessor interest acres gaming made those points i g t had a full opportunity to li then to try to slice of course to this product and say well there's a particular instance of of infringement with respect to one player again that's stretching these claims contorting them into something that was not envisioned there are other claims that talk about more than one gaming device if there's the court i'd like to address two areas in my time this morning first summary judgment of infringement should be affirmed the district court correctly construed all of the claim terms that bally challenges here and i would be happy to answer any of those questions about any of those issues that values discussing here in the very next limitation the patentee uses the word words only one and given that the patentee uses those two distinct terms in the same claim that it should be understood to have different it may be the same command judge were you but the only one doesn't modify command so in the first limitation issuing a command over the network it modifies control or yes your honor it does is the controller should be associated with only one of the gaming devices and that's how the queues products work here each gaming device has a controller associated only with and i'm saying that that's not inconsistent with mobile payments no your honor for the argument is exactly moore was explaining it you do understand argument and more which is that it is that it is that the way that the accused products operate here with power in the words an elder will player walks up to machine inserts his tracking card the transaction one fifty one the command that says if you play x you get why is it only to that one machine so the communities sent about one machine it's received in stored in a controller associated only with that one and we believe that they didn't press the argument that there featuring here in the district court they point to only one sentence at eighty four ninety one in their summary judgment  and in context i do not think that sentence fairly raises the argument that they feature here as their person does so i do believe they did waive the argument i do think though that the district court can be affirmed you know i think you could hold that they waited and you don't need to address it i think certainly her finding of infringement of these products can be affirmed because the products operate in a way that clearly practices these claims if you have any other concerns about any of the other issues on which infringement is based i would like to address it otherwise i'd like to discuss or before you move out of the cross yes he'll pre defined offense at least in the prosecution history and eleven seventy nine there seems to be a claim that one is broader than the other predetermine and predefined in the patentee clearly during prosecution suggested they should not have the same it's hard for me to appreciate any difference in the meaning based on the specifications or even common understanding of the words but nonetheless you've got you know this while can and patty out there say and it does have a different meaning why is the world on notice that they have to be construed differently and please tell me how i'm supposed to construe them if they're to be construed differently i think the  at in the prosecution issue to which you referred or did suggest that the apple can't believe we believe provides a broader scope as to the nature of the event or the amount at that time my kind magistrate judge had held the attorney not to encompass random events and so i think the was taking steps to protect against that curing over but we don't really like the time you see the timing was such that the statement was being made after the my decision was already render if that's my understanding they were trying to come up with another word that would bring random within the umbrella if if they work setting the fact that it was already kicked out of three determined that's why i understand your honor although i think that my comfort was wrong to so construe predetermine and that stand here today there isn't much of any distinction between pre determined subsequent events we hold patente through prosecution disclaimer and other sorts of doctrines to statements made there prosecution because it's what puts the world on notice as to what they believe the scope of their claim is  i think that the common understanding of both predetermine and predefined would suggest that it could be any of them that one could either determine in advance and was describing advance sufficient specificity to know when it has happened and  people on notice something and i just can't figure out what exactly you know the advocate believes they provide greater broader scope that's the nature of a vent or amount the to the words that the district were used to describe the two things are slightly different and i think that they are correct predetermined event can be the occurrence of one or more conditions chosen advance and a predefined event is an occurrence based on a criteria or criteria defined in advance  pre determined event is the occurrence of one or more conditions chosen in advance so you choose conditions in advance when those conditions occur then there will be the trigger in scope of the claims and here the the  products do exactly both of these things they in that one the the the the perry words the transaction when fifty one is the predetermined event when the player eligible player inserts is tracking for that's what causes the command to issue and then in the power winners when the winning ticket is pooled that is the predetermined or pre defined event that causes the in that since you get zero plays erode get the jackpot a command to be sent winning players machine in both of those readily fit within the ordinary meaning of those terms you want to if you want would you like press the reconfiguration command i would yes thank you your honor we do think as i said beginning that the district court erred in reading in the limitations from the specification to the unmodified terms command or message this court case law is clear that come that words are given their full scope and the the claims are what define invention but this but this claim says certainly if the word command was in the abstract not in a claim and you're pointing out the claims to find the invention that i think that you have a really solid ground  things about health the word command must be construed in order to fit within this claim the word command must be construed such that it causes the payment at one of the gaming devices well only a reconfiguration command does that as a reconfiguration command is used throughout the specification so why isn't she exactly right not necessarily just because the word command in the abstract necessarily means reconfiguration in the end but because the word command as precisely with the command not caused by the command so a command could go to the machine saying as in the power winners it does the d m thirty three grand a directive message command goes to the winning players clearance as you post a message that says john have one hundred dollars that is a command in the machine will pay in accordance with that commune the machine will pay one hundred dollars but that didn't that message did it because the command but it still meets the claim language which is simply in accordance with the command the ordinary meaning of that you can accordance with means in series but in no way related to i don't understand how you're divorcing the confirmation from the language in accordance with my instructions in accordance with my command i mean that would suggest you're doing it because i told you to do it you're not doing it because you're just choosing to do it just so happens you're doing the same time i told you do my children might try to help but i'm not really listening to mommy but i am going to do what you response of to a predetermined event so issuing a command in response to the for example the play acts get y and then paying at sun one gaming device in accordance with the command so the command says you know command to cause the payment because she gave you the prologue key thing right the command didn't cause the payment the pushing of the promo button ultimately caused the the payment so she can leave you the man must cause the payment necessarily but rather the command must make the payment available consistent with whatever the terms of the previous terms of that are so she didn't hear about it as much as you're suggesting right now she did because if she did that i got to go back and take away the promo stuff from you will it infinity we do believe that  command causal connection and we ask in our cross appeal that you clarified that as well although it isn't necessary to me verse because she based her judgment of non infringement solely on the notion that commander message must real configuration command but the reason you went the course shouldn't read reconfiguration into message or command is that there are as you say commander rock and they're described in different ways there are different types of commands mentioned in the  you are not arguing to me that the status command is satisfying the requirements of claim ten that it's issuing a command over the network to one of said pre selected game devices responsive to a pre determined event you're not arguing to me that that the status command satisf did it here and we know they know how to say reconfigure is a command because it is repeatedly said in this back yet they didn't claim it that way when they went to write what they claim instead they describe a particular command so in for example one is called a pa i think the my concord had it right as we said in our grief something that's nonrandom the parties to struggle the district or struggle with this notion of conditions they mention criterion privately in predefined event the problem with that is it leaves nothing that's not pre determined or predefined in their expert was asked give us an example of something that's not pre determined he said well because if somebody woke up and decided to give a bonus that would be pre determined we said please put it in the context  design around these products by as we lay out and are preparing to double the non random event that's what the notion of pre determined that is all about it should exclude nonrandom excuse me should exclude random events predefine is complete mystery zero notice to the public on that term there is no question about it your honour's it's not used in the specification anywhere of these patterns yes it was added during prosecution they say it was because of the my current maicon decision if that is a fact they certainly didn't tell the patent office there isn't one line that i can find mentioning pre defined event when the when the patent these decided to add it to a claim and they throw in language saying well that that bro out the meaning of pre determined event in our opinion to use the word predefined they don't explain it they don't refer to the mycon decision they don't say what it means they give no disclosure no indication no notice of what predefined means at best it's the same thing would exclude random events that again my concord at right the district court to address the mike and of course but that that is the only reasonable definition with respect to with respect to the cross appeal issues you know that again the specifications here are not terrifically helpful  many of the clean construction issues yes they're very lengthy they deal with all sorts of things other than the bonus ing events but they are very specific when it comes to what commands and messages are as used in the claim they would like command to mean anything in the computer context it's the broadest definition of any sort of construction when you look at the specification with respect to command it's it's very clear it's used forty times as a reconfiguration command they've been able to find one example of them of a status something called a a status request command that's the only instance one to forty it's the only instance in which computer in which a command is not use as  command that's that's what claim destruction is all about there's no there's no escape hatch for them to say what we brought them down and use just the word command in the claimant where we can we can leave it at that we read in light of the specification it could not be clearer the same is true with respect to message now they point to more examples of different messages in the specification but again when used with respect to the particular bonus in products the liberty of bones in features that set forth in the cla message is limited to a reconfiguration message judge robinson got the construction for both of those terms exactly right she laid out very clearly and specifically where in the specification the reconfiguration command is used and laid out the same thing with respect to reconfiguration message figure thirty three crystal clear water where day that a message is used this reconfiguration message when used in the context of the bonus in future same thing in the stack at column twenty five it explains that a message that is used to create a bonus thing about it contains a real configuration command that is exactly what judge robinson aligned on it is the correct interpretation i should note also we have an inventor testimony john akers we cited this in our preferred he says that the messages are pretty much reef configuration messages better described here for example he said pay on the single game at the end of the game this one time only or a message that say pay multiple jackpots all of those messages are reconfiguration commands that is the way the and the inventor testified the other message is that plenty of sites to those are not in the context of paying a bonus they are not the way that the panties used contended the term message to be used in the particular