preliminary matter we received a request it's morning to extend the time for oral argument and the court has to infer it on the request and we've determined that to deny the request so each side one where does the patent mention complex multiplier where is that in the district court's original construction and was it was that phrase raised in connection with the juries and struck so there are all complex should be included as part of the corresponding structure and you recall in figure four that we're talking about a multi stage transform chuck sure and it just calls those endpoint transforms to understand what those endpoint four lines sixty six two column five line twelve each of the transforms that you may use each of the transforms with the exception of one randomizer transform is a multi county transform that will do the multi codes running which is the key to the so the essence of the invention is multi code spreading and then the other essence of the invention is if i want to combine the signals and actually replicate the transmission from a cellphone i get the spikes when i combine on the highway lanes is kind of like you think of a signal of the signals lined up to get a spike it would take a stereo receiver to make it work in a cell phone so the other q the invention in the claim is the idea of complex for enemies ation which will actually eliminate the spine or greatly reduce it so you will see at the bottom a column for up to the first fortune of column five below you'll see a number of transform just with the exception of one there are all orthogonal spreading transforms that do the multi color the only transform for randomization is the randomizer transform illustrated in figure eight so the corresponding structure identified the description of figure four and then it must include the transformed in a figure figure three and those are all identified here in the portion that i've identified and both experts agree to trial that in fact the complex man randomizer was the only structure of the figure eight structure disclosed in the pattern and then it was part of the corresponding structure that's important the the construction so there is that that expert agreement that you argue and to date the construction the original construction so it's not in the construction the court does well it will it school near we're going to stand reading this that this is teaching you here you are your options for your spartan transforms that's your modulation of your data symbols and here is the option for your complex renomination the randomizer transforming figure eight and th clearly linked to the function in the province clear link to the function of randomizing the figure eight structure and i think where the confusion lies i think that none of these other transforms do randomizing is correct and both experts agree i thought that one mean you're not answering the question you're presuming the answer that it requires complex randomization but it seems to me that i don't know what any of the formulas do but i do know what pseudo random code is to certain extent and that is a former randomization is that it each expert agree that the randomizer transfer was the only structure disclosed in the pack for meeting the function member have to link to the function i've got to spread and i have to have to randomize the randomizing function is a cheat both experts agree a complex think that as a disputed claim construction issue that was at least in part relied the district court relied upon expert testimony to reach his claim construction under ted are we required to defer to the claims instruction since it's based upon multiplier but i don't believe that he said he pointed to the fact that both experts agree that the corresponding structure included the complex multiplier and both our experts agree that what was stated in the course construction at least to complex multiplier yes where the record it would have been and explain to the jury as part of the trial as well as the closing arguments by both sides that the claim requires a corresponding structure requires a complex most general world where before you before you said i'd like to hear some argument on the sequencing of the modulating data symbols can you address the please taking the court's construction as it was give it wish to get as it was given there's no question and there's no dispute that apple's products combine modulating data since the question is should the error that occurred back to the modulator data symbols in the first computing means doesn't that require a certain sequence and it does not because we're dealing with means a function clients and the means of the first computing names as to necessary for performing the function it's a necessary taps and you have both experts agree that it's not necessary to have the means to combine last and that it can occur between the margin layer and the did rely on experts just about me so i'm not sure that i can do anything about it setting aside the question of whether this was presented to the jury which i don't see that it was so it needs to go back but it seems to me that we can't reverse the district court's construction outright because we have to defer to its factual findings of what a person of the ordinary skill with unless we find a fairly erroneous happily there was actually a clear answer on that your honor is that it as many many more things to say but the sequencing our argument your honor i think is one of i was reading your motorola decision and it's really very directly on on point here depend extent twenty six our expert told the jury the language of the claim itself tells us the new order first we randomized and then you combine and that just follows naturally from the reading after claims very similar to the apple motorola case it's confirmed by the figures and the otec case is also directly on point issue so it to the extent i understand your friend's argument is it is that even though the structure of a habit and the players behave a certain sequence it it's not necessary to the invention so they can get there through the doc equivalents is that so that seems like a very odd argument to me the war and the means plus puncture the world because it means us functional world means you have to provide the specific structure so how could you made a decision and this court is rightfully respectful of that process and it's not one not two but three reasons to uphold that verdict there is the validity of the validity issue which which i think is should you want us to reinstate and belittle the thing but i'm having a little trouble getting around the fact that the district court found that the pattern actually did include and so i'm happy to see that again your honor and this court obviously sees this issue time and time again right a party goes to trial on one side of clinton trucks and doesn't get the answer and all the sun oh i've got a new claim construction it's not new but it's come up before there are loads of cases on the topic so you're not inventing i think solve it are in that procedural posture but the logic would be the same we've got regardless it would be an unfortunate outcome it if that strategy that tactic would work here well i mean that but isn't the district court free  happens that's a clarification ackley in our conditions we say that's ok because the clarification itself was was was minor to the point that the jury understood both sides and understood of what's being shot now expert certainly said things that the jury for fred it even even if our expert had said what it's been mischaracterized as adding the complex for example at ten fifty nine he says the course klink instruction told us what the first computing means is and it didn't i mean doctrinally i don't think it has anything to do with it it's a separate case but i think in terms of this court understanding the real world dynamics of a party that avenges arguments in one setting or let's not argue them in another setting i we have a few minutes and i do think the tack is worth trying to understand his girlfriend a lot of time on it and took me to me a little while to really understand that the way it works which it which is this that each data symbol that is transmitted own unique coat if you get that then the a lot of things fall out of that because and the reason why each data symbol has to get a unique randomizing code is because they're being transmitted at the same time so to decode them when they're all sent of the same times each have to have their ten twenty seven is what our expert told the jury example two does not comply with the court rulings instruction in both the converter construction on page sixteen and both the conversion function on page seventeen you'll see that apple proposed what is  distribution of the symbols on the output of the converter if you look at the claim language the claim language only requires that a converter convert the incoming stream of symbols into plural sets  data symbols eats the court construe that is even separation of the incoming stream into groups three to time for the time that and they do symbols each each group has to have the same number so even separation of the incumbent and the language of the claim does not speak to how the data symbols need to be output because it's not important to the invention the inventions about having two or more parallel streams of of data symbols and how many symbols from each group you distribute on those parallel paths is not important to the invention of the inventions turning a single lane highway if you're going to mine all these lanes together and transmit them as one composite signal into a multi lane freeway because you'll be able to get out those parallel paths on the other end how many cars or how much traffic how many symbols you put on any highway is not important to the invention and so they imposed it during trial and it dition to the courts language that would then say i need to then separate each group one side evenly separated from the incoming strain i've got a group of three symbols they then try to add a limitation that you need is an even leap distribute those symbols on the you will find no language in the claim that calls for anything about how you output the symbols is not ported to the invention the inventions about having two or more parallel orthogonal has a multi lane highways and you can place any number of symbols from the group on the top have any number on the bottom path you have three lanes you can distribute them in any way you would like across the three lanes it's again creating a multi lane highway that's the essence of the invention and then the complex randomization to get rid of the spikes in the signal that you get when you go to combine these has for transmission and that allows for it to work on a cellular device of getting really spikes i can use a low cost linear amplifier because now i don't have to replicate this big signal which would take a big amplifier and so that's the essence of the converter back to just a couple of points that i would like to raise and that is you'll find in appendix site  to disclose that the corresponding structure included the complex multiplier so you will find that actually set forth in the courts construction on appendix a seventy three which is page fifty six of the game all or back to the the issue of the sequence the question of whether or not an order is necessary to performing the functions of combining the modulating the symbols and doing the functions of the first structures is not is exact it gives you the exact same output and is interchangeable and then the qualcomm's datasheet for how their chips work say you can reverse the order you can do the order either combine in i have to decide what's the corresponding structure and do i have to read in an order to the structures or not is a question of his if necessary your law says that you only read in so much of the structure disclosed in the pa is actually necessary for performing the functions and all references gree you get the same output the first imputing means will logically if you combine what the combine are within the first computer means it will combine it wi randomized and then a combined either one or gives me the exact same functional result required by the claim and your losses you only read in that of the structure the corresponding structure necessary to perform the function when you move