believe what the examiner says what the examiner said is the comparison has to happen on the same new but the data can usually come from a different node for the comparison to be made with a portion of a tip is table another method was not well known nor correct and this goes to the time and place restrictions submitted by the poor so the point is examiners and i'm allowing this because this requires course no comparison which was part of the prior art brought in a little in the sense that the data starts at one node is then transferred to a different node for the comparison  what you mean by cross little if the comparison have to take place on a computer which is the end of the comparison can take place in in out the didn't know ones which are essentially different computers from correct right so what he's another no was not in those in the patent teaches that you generate a join table and send that join table to the other node for the comparison to take place the specification has a number of direct disclosures on that very point two if i may your honor i consult you two to a number of those where each each is exactly how i know i'm not understanding how what you're saying is consistent with the examiner statement that line another this is one of the ones we believe one of the fundamental errors one of ordinary skill in the art and we should know that evidence in the form of the declaration from dr greenspan would understand that the comparisons have to take place on the computer perhaps  high end i b m take program with mr giardina in that it was a way to do this on off the shelf commodity equipment for efficiency purposes and he did it through using distributing join zero for the which is your relevant provision used to have the following sentence failure to file such a statement and the statement is five the applicant responding to examiners notice of allowance in one zero one four in very failure to file such a statement does not give rise to any implication that the applicant or pattern owner agrees with or acquiesces in the reasons of the examiner act that the sentence it used to be and then whole federal register is all about  unfortunately the federal register obviously unbeknownst to you the p c l sort of thought this through had no recent comments and has rejected the idea that silence in the face of statement by the center for reason allowance means nothing they say quite the contr it gives a presumption and a negative inference and should attach so this is this is what you're unfortunately confronted with your liking of the first time but how will you respond to it again taking a step back we don't think the examiner said so the reasons for allowance we would disagree strenuously is the examiner found that it but here's the problem with what you're saying that he basically quote the tune just too long quote from the  and he says this can't be the first one close is exactly what you're saying comparing first knows with presumably second no and he says it can't be well known in the art because while the fact that men quote a join table another very long might be well known in the arctic is the scope of the claimed invention and then he goes on to say and he describes it and this is in other words which clearly means he's trying to now simplify me i think what's going on here is the join table is created in one move in transmitted as required by the points to another node for the comparison to take place we think this is entirely consistent with the claim language specification is consistent this example this is what the invention is it district court found that we don't disagree there is no disclosure of cross nodal in this pattern anywhere where the comparison takes place not on any notes that can help that's exactly the problem that the examiner may have misunderstood this but he said that it requires cross no comparison in the patentee remain silent misunderstand mysteries and this is not what is involved here you are misreading the claims and what the claims really are talking about is making comparisons on say no would not cross no comparison maybe it would have been a different result as a result of the reason him in the examiner would have found this obviously over groups we disagree that the examiner in these remarks says cross no comparison that he does not say that he doesn't say that there is a comparison have to be done somewhere other than a computer a comparison has to be done in computer one of ordinary so then you're done on the computer but what he's saying is of it's across computers from one no do another he doesn't that say the comparisons made after the transfer so that the two things are on the same now he says they're on different notes when the comparison to the queen language the when language says that the calling language says you generated a join table and you database table is compared with the first join table where in the first portion of the second database table if showed in the first note while the first join table is in the second no making it very clear that the examiner found this to distinguish the route that you're comparing across nodal now physically how can that happen it can happen in the cloud you can have a cross no comparison without transferring the data all on the one node the examiner goes on in sad that's the difference because what caruso and jeff is that the first portion of the second database table is stored in the first node while the first join table is in the first node when the first portion of the second base database table compared with the first so what counsel just describe your honor where i join tables transfer to the same node in order to compare it that's what the examiner says group does and the examiner distinguish peru over this invention because this invention had the first portion of the database table in one node while the join table with in another node now council says well it's transmitted in order for there to be the comparison on the one node but if you look at the steps of the claim if the transmitting takes place before the comparing that what you have happening in the first comparing st going to be a first portion of the second database table in the first node the have paired with a first join table that is now in the second because it's been transmitted and you're going to have a second portion of the database table in the second as opposed to potentially including broadcast actually the district court found that it did include broadcasting and the point isn't whether or not transmitting includes broadcasting the point is that the claim makes very clear what the comparison is between and it is between data that is on one node with data or join table that is on a separate note and the examiner not only said that a twelve seventy three the salmon are repeated again at twelve seventy four when distinguishing the invention from osu where again the examiner said again patsy claims you've got your portion of a second database table on the first note and your join table on a second node and o g does it all on the same note what the temp is not contingent on the notion that transmitting means moving the data from one place with another because if you leave the data on the first no but move it then you can have an transmitting that moving and it isn't as though the appellant ever took the position that there were what they said was it was moved in order to be compared on the same note when you say transmitting doesn't and i understand their grief to throughout the entire brief argues that it is at least here maybe not below but at least two years it is exclusively and nodal comparison as opposed to across the whole comparison of the only way and you don't have to transmit a copy of them to take place there understood your honor but then what happens is we get to the second comparing steps so if you do it that way then the first comparing step is going to be the comparisons are going to take place comparison which it corresponds to he is between the first joint table on the first node and the first portion of the second table which is also now on the first node so that's on one node the second comparison is going to go between the first portion of the second table same thing and the second two entities which has been transmitted from the second no to the first note so all comparisons are taking place in terms intra nodal need even though there has been a transmission of certain d with an issue not for me to decide but i'm just sort of well mixed at the idea that the examiner characterized this interim little because i just can't find ford inspector that being where the comparison goes now i'm nygren there certainly is no discussion  is actually only talking about single node and then it kind of shorthand and said and you can do it the same way with multi note so there's really very little disclosure in the specification about a multi no comparison period whether it's all done by copying and that transmitting and the five but with the course mission let you have any questions any on this particular issue there is another issue on play one that if you're honest reach that you don't even have to address this comparing issue which is the courts down in grand and summary judgment not infringing on two basic ones the comparing that we don't do this international comparison but secondly that the intermediates results files that are file is generated on two separate comparisons for example defendants can find the first two comparing terms into one element and tie them to read the wrist sided step of generating the first intermediate results file plaintiff's raises no argument with respect to this aspect of defendant proposed construction so all welled up in the same moves things that that again requires us to accept the notion that transmit means picking something up and moving it from one place to another and it can't mean leaving a copy behind for i know you're wanting to not it's a completely separate issue if you look above where the court is discussing this in addition to the comparing we also say that there is generating a first intermediate result file based on the above two comparisons and then generating a second intermediate results all based on the above two comparisons and the court is correct the plaintiff raises no argument with respect to this proposed construction so what are the two comparisons if there is no transmitting everything left in the copy what you still have in generating the first intermediate results file that is generated as a result of comparing data from one knows and adding that that result to data from a second node so you're not doing any internal now you're just doing individual comparisons data from no one is added  comparing they are the district court is talking about what is in the intermediate results file and that it is generated based on two separate comparisons the intermediate results pilots and on terrorists and arguments the court also then goes on the next page and then says that there is also a disagreement on not doing all of that but the course says just fine so before it's all hung up in the mov restrictions the prosecution history is a score told repeatedly less reliable than the intrinsic specifications ites in the claim language itself but let me turn back to the reasons for allowance and this is the provision that was not discussed previously but on twelve seventy five of the examiner statements there is a very clear expression of why the examiner is allowing the patent building to be confirmed at lines ten through fifteen and lines ten through fifteen i think supports exactly the position articulated previously which is you've got something stored on node one you've got something stored on node two you exactly right count twenty four lines fifteen through forty and figure twelve support are exact instructions that we're proposing for this court to adopt and then finally all come in on the intermediate results file again we think that gets wrapped up in the comparing turns intermediate results filed well the district court's decision may have but how much applying the claim constructions of the undisputed facts the the this goes to arguments on the summary judgment was improbably granted we believe that we had an expert report opined that there was infringement on this and that was not contradicted by a expert on the defendants side the district where did where do we find this aspect of the expert report which addresses this issue this was the intermediate results it was in the expert report attached to the summary judgment which we're  don't agree with your honor and i know that you recently issued a dissenting opinion in the university of phoenix case on the dispel of claims though i think that it needs to be very clear and the more the specification goes the other way i think th clear the disavowal needs to be and i don't think this is that case i don't think this is c