obscured in this context refers to the clarity of the passage which i think is a little bit lacking and he says difficult figure out exactly what that passage to me as demonstrated by the parties and the words shifting sort of that throughout the history of this case more clear are the other passages in the specification which i think pretty clearly dictate what the term read only area and said memory at least has to be from the applied does not in fact carry any weight in and i think the purpose to which it is being applied in this case what did you film is attempting to say is that an area in memory it goes to portions of memory and i think pretty films attempting to do in making this argument is saying that because they were memory something a person of ordinary skill new york would recognize as a worm storage can be divided into areas that have been written to in areas that haven't been written to because the claim says area one can also take what would be viewed by a person ordinary skill in the art as they were memory parse it down and come up with a single area that i guess like what i my understanding of the first point is that the dispute here and i think maybe the board said this that for a worm memory once a section is written that point it's a read only so that your argument depends on saying that in this path it either it matters who does the first writing the manufacturer of the user or that something once a worm is always a worm and not a read only and that seems like a temporal limits on what the thing if this where is the board said in a seemingly quite even if a user can write to the memory that's just the relevant past history once they've written to it it's that it's on all three and the reason why we think that's wrong is because it's applying the wrong perspective in construction it's as if the board is saying let's look at what a user sees at any particular instant in time and it's not fair to charge that user with knowledge of the past in the prior users and what the user in the past might have experience with a member but the correct perspective i think to apply programming sets up a bit isn't it still just looking at the chip why doesn't that come to the same place or that's it at one point you look at the chip and it is one thing and it only another point it's another thing but that second thing actually the claim reads so it's not the same thing your honor because the programming remains on the chip there's absolutely nothing wrong i think with cleaning something like this we often in the computer arts see claims that read on systems that have conditions that may be triggered at different times or under different circumstances that are not all operating at the same time i think the board implicitly thought there was some sort of problem with that so when the chip or a computer has those conditions at time too it may then be infringing even at a time when it yes i think the chip or the computer needs to have the full set of functionality resided in the claim in this case let's resign it in the claim is the read only area and said memory so it comes down to what  read only areas that might not be the exact words but it does use that word read only in the context of describing what worm it is why isn't that in us combined with the fact that the plane claim language doesn't have a temporal limitation why isn't that enough to at that in order to be called worm you need to have a certain collection of functionality and that collection of functionality is right of all and then becomes read only and that collection of functionality means we're there's a different collection of functionality that means have these two functionalities it is warm it doesn't go the step further which the board indicates that it is and that is to say once the worm has been written to we actually call it can be what about area what about th that error go the inventor's you know the one thing they understood was that a read only area instead memory would in fact users from changing the value of the use number thank you ver of read only area of memory first if i can't quite identify what their construction actually is from reading the briefs it's not entirely clear the way i read it though their construction would still be met by this plant plant a reference because what's being described implies that is literally the same thing as what the five hundred six pattern talks about with respect to this this by so in particular what we have is the examples of cassette implants that you have a cassette that can be recorded on by the user or you can get a pre recorded cassette from what the movie studio if you get a rental store where the user can't write to the tape and that later in both cases there is a byte that it's either left it zero zero when it gets to the user and they can write on t except for ever that is literally the same thing as what the five and six talks about with respect to this use numbered figure twenty one so figure twenty one to d m has the same notion of a general take these numbers zero and it has to the notion of a pre recorded that's not clear because we don't have a clear definition of user i would you think the studio is a huge argument would be and this is dr masters it will actually was their expert dr bane who simply said anyone who writes to the tape dated the tape is a user so in that case it would have been then you have to start testing for things like is the user actually putting data onto this tape or not you create an indefinite problem and creates mischief because now we have to define what a user is and this is a this is actually a severe problem because for instance if you look at  construction during that set of activities you wouldn't be a user and then you would finish formatting the tape and you would begin transferring your backup to it for example and you would come and set it to be you would be moving user data to the tape and so as a consequence you would use so there are some other i mean we have site tech examples of the problem here which is that how do you know that it was the user the movie studio could very well be the user in that example first time they write so so you've got to yeah exactly which we have other questions about that how do i know when to use or there's clear if you would have a very hard time going out who is infringing in that situation if anybody the other thing i want to just put make sure we that i pointed out  so actually figure twenty broke is broken into three parts twenty eight twenty b and twenty c and these are three different body months of how you would essentially store in this data in the memory in a way that that would not be rewritable or they make they show this example where you can use the entire storage area as a r w m which is a rewritable memory region and you provide this right control means a box showing that there are twenty to the left and what it says then over on a con seventeen then is when you get down to around line nine so therefore writing to the region treated as the wrong region can be performed so the specification itself teaches you that this claim the area that there is a read only area of memory can actually be written to even after you make this tape so the construction of sony's proposing simply can't be right i mean the pattern itself teaches you that there are situations where you write that area of memory just like implies that there are situations where you can write to the early memory and a platter once it's written to it can't be  the tape that if you had already written the use number one into that into the memory of this tape you would never be able to write into the memory but it could never be able to actually write any data on the tape which would make it unusable so clearly there has to be a way for when you're writing your data distribution data on to the tape you could you could do that and then subsequently write the use number one to the memory of the tape to make clear to downstream entities that the tape could be written so again fully consistent with what the poll board looked at all this and concluded i think very clearly that what this claim means read only area of memory just means that at some point this memory becomes on right about by whoever has to take and they found and that's a perfectly reasonable i mean it's probably frankly because of the right construction under any standard cassettes with the same approach yet so unique is not in the claims it was never proposed as a construction below and it would obviously be very different from a freshman perspective if the memory had to be big enough to have a unique number for every possible cassette ever made in the universe so what's left instead is a notion that you have a number there that's used to identify the tape and that's exactly what plant has plan has a serial number of that's used to identify because sat in the board made a very clear finding about that  board said and we think that's true even if a bunch of assets of the same serial number and i guess i took at least part of sony's argument to be that can't possibly be what identification information in our patent is about because the whole point there is to prevent the user whoever that may be from finding another cassette taking the memory out of it that memory doesn't have a usage control writing or writing bar and putting it into the cassette that did have it and you can do that if you find another cassette with the same serial two cases are identical they're both doing the exact same thing the only question is how big is the serial number to be in order to centrally make that probability low and the probability so low that no one would bother performing such an attack sony sony make a probability below there was some i mean essentially the point is that if you're trying to defeat this kind of attack that you're referring to you would need you need to make the attack so you know hard enough that i'm right but i think you would not actually need a one to one correspondence radio you need to ours uniqueness so we never had to really get in there develop that evidence from the experts but most recently for the question tape that is in fact the user and if that user has the ability to change the read only memory then it doesn't meet these construction because the read only memory used to prevent all users from accessing the used number in the numbering and so that example i don't think it's particularly instructive toward the end goal of defining what you read on your memory and it really is really goes back to how we have to view in terms of claim construction you know whether or not a device falls within the concept of on the area that memory or not and that's from the perspective of one of a person of ordinary skill who's going to look at the chip was going to look at the programming the functionality on the chip and the one thing that has to do is exclude users from changing that information and that doesn't fact i think also just to get back to the question the judge still asked during the opening part of this presentation it does actually exclude users from writing the first instance of the byte  ability to write to it not that for example a manufacturer keeps the password in order to do maintenance on the chip or something like that within the context everything the patent says in column sixteen in column seventeen and was the point of the invention is to lock in a pre determined use and to prevent users from changing that information it would be i think appropriate to assume that the only the manufacturer has access to the password but it is there is a question of who has access to the password right this is not a simple statement that the five point six and you're saying that someone downstream can write to that memory saying that a person can write to it if they have the password and then we have to figure out who has the password in the context of five and six that can really only be