looking at this issue because it tells us that analysis analytic steps we should take in the first step is look at the claim language to see what structural words are used if at all in the claims and how do they inform that decision or look at the specification in the intrinsic record and then as necessary look at the extrinsic record and we can do all three of those things in this record and we come up as i hope to show you with the inevitable conclusion that check stand by unit is claimed in surely structure purely functional terms defined only by what it does in the first thing is the word unit as the greeks make clear the word unit appears in thirteen different elements in the claims all wildly different functions and so the unit itself and no one seems to argue this does not compose any particular structural it is an oxford so then we have the other two words checked and stand by and you look at them individually checked isn't the structure  what the structure supposed to operate on and stand by isn't a structure it's what's supposed to happen to the check so the words of the claim language itself point us strongly in the direction of a surely functional so we look at the specification the written description contains only two mentions of check stand by unit one in column two and one in column five one of them tells us where it is and the other one tells them what it does when you look at that figure when you look at that belt that spot on the belt even if you include the vertical portion where you simply point with the arrows but cannot serve that function because the claims require that you're processing a bundle of sheets including at least a check and that you're deposited on that belt at pre determined intervals yet at the same time you are stopping for an indefinite period of time one check to decide whether you're going to complete the verification how you accomplish that w simply a belt on the check with all of those checks coming around is not explained in the app because there is no structure the slows the can accomplish that maybe you lift the check off the belt somehow maybe you have a second but that's not anywhere in the specification so in the briefing a great emphasis is put by my adversaries on the fact that while you had extrinsic evidence you have the testimony of dr house that testimony is found  at the thirty two nineteen to twenty and it is one sentence answering in the written direct testimony question what he did not and all that answer says is there is structure because of what its function is more holding checks in a standby configuration because all that testimony tells us is again a purely functional definition well i mean we do have an expert saying that we're just talking about well known record like for example in the greenburg case where you had to transfer mechanism and there was evidence outside the record that the tech mechanism was something you could find in a catalog label detent mechanism but the record is clear in this case the term check standby unit appears only in this patent and nowhere else there is no description whatsoever of check stand by unit in the extrinsic record as having any meaning before this patent existed or at the time of the existence  says and he if that were the rule if you could evade what is otherwise declared in the in the extrinsic record as clearly limited only by function if you can evade that by saying well i know what the structure is it's well known look at up there in a different and our ability to turn to an expert to say everybody knows what this means again the expert didn't say everybody knows what a check standby unit is with the expert said he has to check stand by you that means cup for example which theoretically under that assumption would be the narrower of the control but what we still today don't know even with all the briefings we sit here in this room is what is a check standby unit other than what it does that someone could invent tomorrow or a year from now they could perform this function that would not be covered by this claim that's the problem your honour's with allowing functional cla language unbounded by disclosure in the patent because as the however court told us when you allow that what that means is you were foreclosing people for inventing new ways of performing that from that what about the diagram i mean does look from the diagram that it sort of that that there is sort of an off ramp here that's provided to all the jets that there isn't there is simply a spot on the belt that vertical spot and again is the problem i mentioned to your honor earlier is that when you have these other bills coming maybe cash maybe more checks they're all coming on this belt that it's moving in it's kind of life that i love lucy episode where lucy is trying to catch up with the the chocolates that are coming on you've got some have to have some way to stop that check get it off the belt to allow the other ones to process at their pre determined time intervals that can't happen without a structure capable of doing that and there is nothing in that diagram and certainly nothing in the text the does that  how much would in your view dr howard have had to say you say he can't simply stand up and say this is well known and then sit down for in effect sit down how much more would be required by way of  extrinsic evidence to satisfy you that there actually is a well known as set of well known components of physical structural consisting of well known components where there are two things the first thing is if patent if he had a reference book that he had and if he had a machine that you know was labelled check stand by you but the real this record is absolutely clear this term was coined by this inventor to clearly tr for the patent to be issued it was the point of novelty of this invention to use three sensors to detect overlaps bearing in mind that at the time that amendment was enter the claim already required the verification unit to detect abnormalities so it was not enough to detect abnormalities to get this claim allowed the claim had to detect overlaps and in this case there is no dispute whatsoever about what the accused overlap protectors actually do which is only detect abnormalities that might be an overlap but might be something out for example before a sensor simply detect a sheet that is too long it could be to partially overlap sheets that have been separated notorious for they're used to detect prostate cancer and they're notorious for having some significant amount of paul spots all false positives but they did none the less you wouldn't disagree that they detect  would let me give you the monitor example i have both the common cold and you want to clay will produce a fever no one would consider a thermometer a detector or you want to play it's actually point to know the difference between those two because the remedies and consequences of not addressing the very severe so when you have an instrument that the patent office set has actually has to detect overlaps and not more out mere abnormalities the tech is that it techs species of functional claiming the problem is or one of the problems is that anything that performs the function it will come with then and that's problematic in this court's case law is clear that it can include a g future invention we have never said that if something is of this to my knowledge and correct me if i'm wrong we never said that a limitation which is less and central core importance to the to refuting respond by saying ah but here's the structure and i think when my friend raises it it is relevant in the sense as it shows confirms what person of ordinary skill in the art would know which is this is the type of component which would be an do not use needs there is a rebuttable presumption that there is not in permissible functional planning going on which puts the burden on the challenger to come forward and show that the ribs and then the other is that the essential and then he says these are clearly as crude units well known units and escrow units they make something in their brief that you can't if you google check stand by unit you don't come up with anything but if you  don't think it's not your honor i think it's much more kin to a brake or a lock or a screwdriver to one of skill in the art and you know the way to confirm that is google a t m s per unit and you will find a specific structure inquiry into this course cases would a person of skill in the art understand that and the answer from dr howard was clearly yes they would understand it and that's great in that dr sturgis was the witness on the other side he never denied that he didn't six so again but then you have assumed to say that the two thirty five pattern fails to provide any corresponding structure for performing their cited function right but that's answering a different question i think that really goes to the second step of the inquiry here which is assuming it is a means plus never even denied that specifically that that one of skilling out would understand this clearly to be an escrow unit and that's the end of the inquiry under ciro clip because they have they have the burden they have to rebut that presumption and they've got nothing from we just have a check stand by and that's why you would go as the essential inquiry into the person of skill the art and ask them you understand what this means does this term have definite meaning to you and the answer from dr howard was unequivocally yes he said clearly it means escrow unit and that that is something of want to skill now would know it's something you can buy over the internet you refer to that as a drum like escrow at page sixteen forty six that happens to be exactly the structure that is used in both these machines here you can see it in the came forward and said i know exactly what that is that's a screw i think that would be the end of the inquiry and that's basically what dr howard testified to do you know what it would be say about that language from williamson that refers to a similar argument that computer terms interface in the like which is a more abstract western inherently structural component here dr howard was testifying about you know a physical structure of the a t m escrow unit something that he was in there was something that is typically understand that to be an a t m that's korean at something you could buy off the internet with one click and that's the end of the inquiries there's definite structure just as if the patent had referred to a lock clamp or break if the court has no further questions you thank you very much but i have just a couple of very brief observations to the extent that it's relevant the check stand by unit was added as a limitation during  prosecution it was not something that was there as a side issue and with respect to the overall invention which is the notion of trying to process a bundle that includes at least a check the obvious problem of how you handle the deposit of a check in the midst of handing over bundles of things the check standby unit is the central part of the problem i want to turn to this continued use of the word escrow and make a couple of observation about one thing that you're mentally pointed out it's not in the patent it's not in the claim they did not claim an escrow  they claimed a check standby unit because they clearly want that they claim something more than a drum like structure indeed there is no evidence in the record that the drum likes records you can buy on the internet now riva known were invented at the time of this patent but this inventor may well be trying to do is to claim the drum structures that he didn't invent because they're actually fairly elaborate they allow you to put a number of checks on at the same time and then decide to pull only one out while leaving all the others they're fairly