definition when you add the word disparate a word that we're all familiar with it simply means that those structures were schemers in the databases are incompatible in the sense that the data can't be really there when i say incompatible i perfect but it sounds to me like you're saying that if there's one single thing that's different in that disparate any degree of incompatibilities in the schemes or structures that will prevent of leaking between the two then i guess on your in compatibility means different have identical database because only identical databases are going to have the same schema but that's right if there is any degree of incompatibilities between two databases so that you have to do something to reconcile a lot of databases with if you if you put two i b m databases so by side and they were operated using the same database management system in the in the tables were set up the same yes they would be well let me ask you about that so we assume there are two i databases they have all the same underlying thing but again going back to my hypothetical one of them has been set up with columns of data and one is set up with six or they incompatible if that six column if the if the first five columns  b m databases clearly talk to each other but if the data in the six column this important in terms of the query the user uses in needs to get that six column data and it's set up for example with a different format and different data type a different columns name if it's a different way then you can join that data it won't work the point is when you talk about incompatibilities which the core i mean is there yes i'm trying to get to how far this is your argument go it seems to me that this event of your patent is if you have an i b m database that uses a bunch of different fields and then you have a completely different database and you factor with a different underlying system or whatever and that you want to be able to poll those two static and laps you regardless of whether the source database has had any specific story of incompatibilities it seems like we've gotten off of that basic point which is the invention was never about the specific degree of incompatibilit refers to an absence compatible kids are represented fires and i don't see how when you have going back to my first hypothetical if you have two i b m databases and they share a spy five values to say that there's an absence of compatible value there may be one value that is not president the other but that doesn't seem to me there's an absence of compatible compatible that is if you look at that six column and then other aspect the six column that's different that makes them disappear so if you try to pull data from that six column you need the special software tool but again that the intention was about any specific degree of in compatibility reference the specification  the reason you need it from a technical standpoint it's because databases are governed by the database management system which is a proprietary structure schema if you will that each database manufacturer use based on that proprietary structure schema all of these databases are going to be different or incompatible they can't be linked unless you have a special software tool that resolves those incompatibilities were disparate and if you look at the ordinary definition the district or its construction somewhat outpolling it seems to be to others but the position you're sorting here today seems to go way too far the other way if you have a home construction a disgrace that does it depends on a tiny bit of difference between forensic they have all the the month day for about and numbers and words to sure you if you want to take a minute you refer to that first sentence that's actually the prosecution history of course to be clear the  examples that we put the public on notice should be included so if you just look at that four sentence answer question you can say disparate databases means incompatible datas structures incompatible structures or schemas in the different database heights e g i b m oracle if i was right from that senate well that makes a lot more sense to me but your notion that they have to be completely identical to distinguishing over jones no i get it one way of reading the prosecution history is your invention disparate databases whatever that means it doesn't happen i'm kidding you you somehow figured out a way to enable linking data from different databases other way and common keys well you're saying they're your claim in certain circumstances will use common g s then it seems like there's a problem common key value is not necessary is not necessary what does that mean in plain english the best interpretation is you may or may not have it it's not necessary if you have incompatible key values that's one form of disparity if you don't have common key values or if you have common key values rather and you have some other form of despair than the data bases are still disparate i def an issue may be because those are other maybe your invention doesn't need regardless of whether this paragraph is being used to specifically overcome the jones reference nevertheless we now have a public record where you are declaring what the word disparate databases m we're obligated to try to figure out the best you can what the scope of the claim is in light of this and if you read it that way which of course we disagree with then the critical take home point today is that no matter what words you sentence or two but i think that's important because the first sentence sort of sets the tone for everything that follows and says specifically the disparate nature of the both databases refers to  absence of compatible keys or this or that and it continues to say that would otherwise unable linking data within the constituent databases hard for me to read entirely consistent with what the district court help why am i wrong because the order critical there is to it even if you were to take that sentence address as a i think the or it's just going right in the absence of where the context comes into play it's so important that we said war and it's so important to consider that force and that's the context of that any type of incompatibilities will prevent leaking if you look at dr mcleod's report and i refer you to eight forty eight zero five through six eight fifty two through fifty sorry a fifty two fifty three through fifty four in a fifty four fourteen through fifteen you see that he very clearly says it needs a type of incompatibilities disparity and g specific examples will prevent the linking so if you take that senator on or which ensign you know that would otherwise link data what is hawking to it about is just given specific examples of where if you have those incompatibilities the structure if it had the same formatting the same type of column name etc then that's just feel can also be but in the hypothetical as i understood it that cecile was somehow different and so it couldn't be linked because it was set up different had different schemes or structures for whatever reason the fact your point in the first sentence there's two other errors there even if you say that that's some sort of definition you know you can't change the or to answer the court's precedents very clear that to have some narrow i could do that as well as a matter of i would be happy that there is not you are free stuff back and we look at the exceptional facts in this case and there are exceptional for two reasons number one there undisputed of time not that he spent on the overall software but on the specific limitations at issue which is how long did the inventor take to actually enable a working prototype which would access these disparate on that no you are because the ony issue that was raised in the expert declaration from dr cardenas dubious as expert when you have one paragraph on the actual amount of time and in that paragraph he says i understand that m pursuing spent about a year man you're working on this product and i don't think one man year is necessarily on give that's all he says with a problem that opinion is that has no really any bearing on the actual facts of the case because he doesn't address the fact that the actual time was twenty seven hundred to thirty six hundred man hours which exceeds one man year two he never addresses a critical facts your are which is that she didn't simply have a team development with the toward a working product he tried three different times and failed he took the product that was actually describing the patents which he later admitted actually didn't practice invention those are the figures in the pans that's occasion he took the do have is we have their expert declaration which is the only thing that they put into the record which we talked about one man year of time but what we have and the reason why we're trying to focus on the undisputed facts we understand  develop a lead different new infrastructure by the time that he was able to figure this out with his fourth try and what should we be looking at actually looking at the wrong number of hours or should we be looking at this testimony about starting stopping then starting over with some new model you want i think you look at it i don't really because in terms of number of hours i don't know if there's anything in the record that says anything over one thousand hours is automatically and do we don't have a measuring stick to really understand i mean yes thousands of hours sounds like a long period of time but you know not all software is created a case which specifically said in that case the facts were very similar to ours where the estimated amount of time was one and a half to two man years of development time and the federal circuit in that case found that that was a clearly solution he had to develop a whole new infrastructure to support the capability of accessing this so i think when you add all those facts together your honor i don't think that your there's anything is missing here this is an exceptional  not asking for a change in the law i think all we're asking is that when you look at this unique set of circumstances when you have this crystal clear record of what transpired or how much effort was undertaken by man that is described by their experts with extraordinary why don't more meet and because number one what is this invention and i believe your honor but us decision this invention is not about accessing any kind of database it's about accessing disparate database and it's clear from reading the intrinsic record that accessing disparate davies's means access to databases without using any of the prior art techniques that were already well known for absentee was sent to databases for example co there are truly and in terms of engagement which precedes it is that he was telling the world in the patent office look if you want to use my when i'm cleaning out my invention is the ability to access different databases without using any of the priorities completely logical statement and that's what's reflected and that's why when he went yes i analyzes jones as a pirate reference they don't go through and look for all three  that different in your position here to me that if there is one of them in it little things in the think it's not a sprint but i don't know how we read it like that what if there may have been some commonality but it's still because of the commonality it was some kind of a data fire but because of the underlying structure you still can't draw simultaneously from them with no techniques without the need to spread you know you are if it doesn't use what i would say that the time of the  deference to definitions provided if you cannot use you have to be able to use the common keys or record identifier values to be able to wait for your answer as even if they do have other types of security numbers if they can't be used t that happens to have value that line up with values doesn't have to be that there is a unique set of all the values appearing if there is any subset of values that i can use that key and i have the ability to join them across these two databases and what that allows me to do is if one database for example has a sort of security number that tells you the employee needs in another database has resources your number telling you the salary about that that allows that two of operation to take place so i think to answer your cases in which case you have disputed a base that don't use common keys and they are from different vendors and i think that's the that's the point of that last sentence is that different nature could extend to different kinds of configurations which you don't have that the definition of disparate databases excludes common or compatible keys and if you look at that passage through the discussing you know it's and john's reference in particular the common are compatible keys is data information that exists in the two databases which you can link the data between the two databases so the social security number is a classic example if this is so six curity number in one database and a social security number in another database that's d d information that we can use to those two databases is a common or comparable key if you had so that's why much of it may just be i don't understand databases and the state of the art at the tide and they but i'm thinking about  there was a couple as a comment the focus is on the data information so i don't believe there's a situation where the underlying software which is eliminated the ability to actually access that information we can we can query that one database we can president specifically amended claims to introduce the concept of disparate database and at that time discuss what district eight a basis meant in unequivocally stated that disparate databases excluded the concept of common he stated unequivocally that it bottom into baskets invention common keys are not necessary and then criticize jones on the very next page for its use of co keys distinguish jones on that basis because common keys were used to link data in jones and what mr acetate was saying is that in mind mention i'm not linking days ago those data  databases that do not have common keys are disparate i found a way to link data between disparate databases one of the parts allusions to linking data to district databases with the so called intermediate database and the full import of what they're saying in that prosecution histories i can remove the intermediate database because i've found another way to directly join from disparate database that was the distinction was being made with that that the correlation parameters are well that's what they claim in the specification if i can turn the written description argument i just couldn't go back to that fourth  sentence in the prosecution history yes despard nature extends to all these different kinds of databases from different manufacturers actually this statement says different types of databases in the structures and us so that sense isn't just record i think correctly found was merely exemplary in discussing the types of databases where you might see such disparate ness but some of those that would link data so i guess you're saying the fourth sentence really serves more to provide context for how disparate databases would work and it's not really an example of what disparate databases are there if i can quickly turn to the room description point because you did ask me about correlation parameters right at the time the application was filed and based on the undisputed fact today did not possess an invention that would actually link data between disparate databases really there's only one passage if you have an expert declaration we do not from an expert declaration in the context of the summary judgment others i did yes i did but if we actually look at that expert declaration and they talk in that expert expert declaration is approximately the point to say six ten pages on the issue of written descriptions actually if you actually look at those ten pages then it's a four to four six three five six almost all of those pages are simply quotes from the specification and in fact there's page after page of a chart comparing the provisional really where the expert contends that says disclosure of its ability to link data between disparate databases is a four two four seven three four eight the passage in the provisional application nowhere in that a discussed incompatible databases or disparate databases there's reference to correlation parameters but there's no discussion at all about how they might link data between disparate databases and the discussion on its  to create a system that access disparate databases using that system he tried to have the databases failed each time and ultimately clients and succeeded by developing new infrastructure or new capability a four zero one two we talked about new capability to develop the idea side three years later that new capability is nowhere dispose of the specification it's that new capability that allowed him if at all to access disparate than someone of high skill in the art he failed over the course of at least twenty seven hundred dollars more than a man here the district court found after looking at the evidence of a man year was two thousand hours per minutes and thirty thank thank you the owner i'll let me address shoes question which you've asked a couple of times and you asked my friends over here about a minute and compatibility i want to try to put this in context because as you said it's baffling  we keep on talking about compatible values when you have two databases and they have key values that are compatible i want to be clear that if you have some other disparity that will prevent leaking then th to this data bases are are incompatible disparate by definition in that context it's not a minute in compatibility or minute disparity because if that so called minute disappeared your compatibility actually prevent linking which is the context for honor and it's important it's significant so we talked about the formats for example one can't call that minute when in fact it has a different flow and let me let me go eventually social security number context suppose you have two databases oppose the use of security numbers to look up employer records and it a base one has employer records of three different categories database two has employer records with three completely different categories i assume you think those are disparate because the categories are different i'm not sure what you mean by categories but yes for example if the categories were different because they were stored in the structures of the databases differently in the schema is differently than  definition of what i mean ok i'm sorry i think this is all daft but what i mean is that in database law and the categories are a person each job title their salary their data entry and category is absolutely critical that prevents it from leaking in those columns you're talking about there's with respect to the the social security numbers if there is some reason that rises to the level of an incompatibilities disparity that prevents categories in database what if you search the second one you're going to see you're going to get the same data it is just different data and then you you know you have the data under both database it sounds like to your example you have to perfectly compatible databases because you can actually  between the two dip two databases was enough to make them disparate and i may have misunderstood your question misleading because i did if i just say that a pretty extreme if there what i'm saying is that if you're trying to link to specific pieces of data and you can't do it because any you need to grieve in compatibility then fine definition it's just it's stiff disparate i mean if you have the six column in your original hypothetical if that six column doesn't for some reason prevent the linking to that's not a problem but if you're trying to link data and there's some in compatibility that prevents you from doing it then it's disparate doesn't matter the degree i mean we've used the word minute that that's not really a fair word because this invention is not about the that anyone reading that for senate would know have to be captured by the construction extends to for example that is the only way to interpret that senate in the court in a major critical error gave no way if if there are differences in the structures or schemas that will prevent them leaking yes they are disparate if they are incompatible in that sense incompatible i mean i know this is database technology but you know way that  that linking so are you are you saying that this invention therefore does not rely on linking and that's what makes it an invention that it operates in some other fashion you have to have a special software tool to reconcile those disparities or incompatibilities so that you can only that's what special software tools are we talking about and it where is it just it's disclosed in figure six in the face of no expert testimony on the other side it's not conclusory i encourage strongly encourage the courts read those twenty five pages and let me give you the deck side as well which is a twenty five fifty two through fifty seven