the poor before this court the primary issue is whether or not the district court pressure mystery if i understand the system is the security of the seven world trade center the security turnstile and entering the building has to go through that and i understand correctly also the card gets passed over the border there in that action is necessary to gain access to the building as well as to indicate the call information to the elevator correct i don't know the whole i think the record require that you don't now i thought the rendering already well i'm just i'm not sure about entering the building versus entering the elevator area to i mean obviously you can enter the lobby but to get past the lobby into the into the building to to go elsewhere in the building you have to go through the security turnstiles that's correct ok so why aren't you arguing that this is just like the key embodiment which is covered by two point seven scrivens specifications claim seven is not an asserted claim we are as we are here discussing two independent claim yes yes but even if it's monetary when i thought it was it was the same it is why isn't the fact that there is such a claim seven and such a description in a specification indicate that the package to place the card over the card reader to gain access to the building that is beyond the lobby area why isn't that indicate that this kind of action wasn't being disclaim either in the specification or in the prosecution history i don't know what is meant by the actual word key so i can't i don't feel comfortable answering that question i believe that there is that personal it's not disclaim any of the claims so there is not know what your argument is i'm asking you whether there's this although i'm wondering why you're not making this alternative aren't in other words even if you had a car which was designed as an elevator for that was the only purpose of it and you placed that over a card reader and that calls the elevator tells you what if if that kind of action was not a hands free action  because the claim seven dependent client that you you can be with in the client and still take a card out of your pocket place it over the card reader as long as you're not taking an extra step to call the elevator if it's just part of the building entry step that's ok am i missing something classic claim differentiation argument yes i have to admit i am not familiar with that argument that they were not disclaimed what was covered by claims seven because claim seven continued to be there and that may be true i believe there's many additional arguments to show that there's no disclaimer i don't think anything supports the disclaimer the word personal action is only mentioned once in the specification and never again so it doesn't surprise me that there's other additional arguments to show that was no disclaimer because arguments to show why the district court completely made up the disclaimer i think i can go through out the opinion and show one mistake after another in how the opinion was written and how the specification was characterize  contact us and independent of the orientation of the information transmitter and i understand your argument about hands free contact but it's an independent not requiring some manipulation to press buttons her keys her switches or anything of that sort but what about this language that it's without orientation of the transfer winners what does that mean well in our view that means we no longer need the user hold it position it press buttons and view it so now with the dummy part of preprogramed part the user no longer need viewing it or position it in any particular way simply when it's brought within the record an area it's activated by the recognition device and his role to interpret that to report to orient in that card over a reader correct that is not that's not mentioned anywhere about bringing it within so many inches of the reader the recognition area is referred to throughout just the area would still believe that it's not personal action in any way an operational i know it doesn't have anything to do with the orientation of the car well it's not mentioned so we'd be speculating one of the persons not mentioned specifically but the question is what's meant by the  royal disclaimer like well one of the kids you know brought disclaimer language and to the only phrase that made its way into the claim construction was personal action and now the question becomes what did mean by personal action and i think the court should just look at the one place it's mentioned in column two of the patent on j eighty two and that paragraph that begins at lin t clear personal action is even refer to the information transmitter embodiment that's the first ambiguity but the district court tried to resolve that ambiguity in what is the district court she insert a co comma right before work without any personal action being required by the passenger and the district court of course did that make it seem clear that the clause is referring to the information transmitter embodiment it's far carrying it albeit in your hand and bringing it into the recognition area cannot possibly be personal action what does the district work do in her opinion she refers to not carrying it by the user but carrying it on the passenger on the passenger no one mentioned in the pack made up by the district court as well so they just declare it a little reconstruction to make it seem that this personal action clause was clear applied to everyone by it and was somehow associated with these other concepts that the court has now raised such as hands free contactless and independent of the orientation i don't see the association first of all of personal action with those other concepts and as my previous point it out when you look at these phrases and look how they were used in the amendments and look this is the references that were a three twenty one and a three twenty two those are the only three pages of the five history that are relevant here to show that this applicant repeatedly distinguished the references transmitter not the other way around that is the basis for distinguishing the references and that is reflected in the amendment itself so there is that this is not a case and i'm well familiar with those cases where there is area in between that was unnecessarily given up that's not the case here and all this advocate was very careful to argue in support of the amendment that was actually made and you'll notice that in my read one i think it's a baby i don't know what the real definition of personal action is i don't think anybody knows but it appears to me that one plausible explanation is that the person actually is referring to the recognition body where there is no information transmitted but it's not clear i don't know the precise definition of personal action because that phrase correct but that where you draw the line of the claim itself says that the passenger carries it and that district were never dealt with that express claim language that the claim itself acquires that passenger carry a card and bring it presented to the recognition area the district court but that is personal action that's inconsistent with the claim that's inconsistent with the amendment that's inconsistent with the fact that the passenger must carry the card it's a preprogrammed card that's how the references were distinguished that's what the specification is discussing that's what's in the background the net but it's  and it is divorced from a three twenty three twenty one three twenty two you could not make those statements that you just made if you look at the context of how because i have looked at the context and i that was the distinction there's nothing to connect the terms you just used with personal action not so that's what we believe is the stretch because the district court and oldest are associating personal user no longer need to wait which is actually which is in the claim language the information transmitter no longer is actuating the communications now the other way around what about page three twenty five truly him three still in compass is reaching into your pocket picking the card in your hand and moving it over this getting away yes because if you look at that phrase you just read the record both the specification and the prosecution history that it every place where there is some reference to hands free or automatic here is some association with some activity or key or calling or something not simply moving the card into proximity of a receiver correct that is our argument that was the point of our  briefing to show each of the quotations in there to tally to show that the court did plot these words out of context just when that is our argument and it seems to me that that argument is th no one thing that really reinforces that argument is the claim differentiation argument with respect to the key that you didn't make so i'm so i'm left a little bit all correct in the class is a fairly small area it's not the entire turnstile it's us fairly small area there and then you have to run your car within one and a half to three inch three and a half inches over the top of this glass area i want to get the if the reader happened to be mounted low or such that if i a normal adult with that card in a while it would be walking right by would come with him three or four inches of the reader without doing any action whatsoever with that in frame it could i mean there are other let me put it this way i would it could be free and it could be no personal action there are other limitations here that you know that the question of infringement depends on that are not at issue in this appeal but you could have it in that way  on the side for instance so using his free really means hands free yes or cutting it in but it seems to me even in the hypothetical i just suggest which which you seem to agree migration an infringement question you have to touch the card with your hand to put it in your wallet before you head off to work do you know yes sir well or maybe two weeks earlier but at some point it was the kind in the wallet so it hints free when you get to the building it's hands free to cause the actuation you know what the amendment was about schindler's lawyer is correct about this is the amendment number of things one of which was require that the recognition device actuate the information transmitted so when it talks about truly hands free it's talking about hands free you don't have to do anything with your hands to cause the actuation and that's only happening in the the disadvantages and scuzzy is true that are notable here number one that you have to take the card out present bugs and which is something that's difficult if you don't have a free hand in order to operate the device and number to be got take this thing out of your pocket to look at the display each time it's what happens when you have to use your hand take it out of your pocket when the seven world trade center car to the operating the device is taking this car out and or below or on appeal so there's a waiver issue but to directly answer questions two points number one the district court interpreted the language of claims seven in the just record interpreted he having a code which is the the relevant language there is a device configured to provide signals for communication to open a lock in other words to do so but it's not if you take if you have to take your hand out take  card in your pocket and let's say the device range was greater is five feet or ten feet instead of three inches and all you have to do is walk into the turnstile area and it reads your device  it opens the lock in the run of the reason we know that is because of the prosecution history j three twenty five it's interesting that mr reid said there are three pages and pointed to three twenty twenty one twenty two and judge lynn corrected him and said what about j v three twenty five and the reason j three twenty five is important not just important but critical to addressing your question on point seven is because the language of j g twenty five address is with respect judge when referred to was to enable truly hands free operation believe it or balls and then it says applicants respectfully submit that no proper combination of the applied documents of record  claim seventy three twenty four starts the discussion of claim seven so the applicant in the prosecution history directly said that even as to claim seven which is the one that would be the support for this potential claim differentiated differentiation argument there was a specific disclaimer that claimed seven when you're talking about the code key means it's one where it's truly hands free operation and there's no way to reconcile that with a god it's not a rule so you have to look at the other evidence here and the other evidence is the prosecution history and the specification where they operate in stating over and over and over again truly is necessary to call the elevator that that's a possible construction on wells except that claim seven's p pen didn't claim on the distinction of basically it was what do you do if you have no free hand and automatic contactless excel record if you can't have some situation where someone you know tapes it to their elbow and then moves their elbow around says aha it's hands free it's still personal action even if you have put it on your elbow as opposed to your hand is there is here anything in the prosecution history or any place in the prosecution history where schindler used the phrase personal action no sir the only place where that appears that he's in this back in that in that paragraph it talks about the advantages achieved by the adventure reside in the fact that the desired journey destination is communicated automatically to the elevator control by the information transmit carried by the elevator usage or by the recognition features of the elevator units that's the fingerprint embodiment without any personal action  recognition of features rigorous the call this or well it seems to me then that the raising one's hand to a reader which is what the recognition of features and body entails occur for someone to use that about it it's not covered by the claims i can certainly see one of the things that's mentioned as an example of optical recognition it's feature recognition looking at the features of someone's face that's something then related really to the operation of the device and what they had in mind and i think what they had in mind is what they said over and over again in the specification in the prosecution history which is hands free automatic contact and move it to that right spot if i may make one more point and that is the the proposal that chandler has which is get rid of the reference to the personal action as well as reference for electromagnetic waves what on information transmitter recognition advice which is two independent claims but the one example that was given one example that just a court did give with respect to claim seven j fifty four was the hotel room specifically says one of the mill your example would be the card key that opens a hotel door and we all know how those work and that is given as an example of the claim set by the right decision by the district  judge a j fifty four so her opinion is completely inconsistent page by page waffles on personal action because it's not clear what personal action is because personal so she understood in the background that personal action no person action is required because the information transmitter does the actual wish she understood that and sesto that no person actions required so that's an example of where the dis it correctly you argued earlier that the the the distinction that was being made with personal action is that you don't need to use your hands actually and write and that repeatedly throughout wherever it says hands free it's argument no need to actuate something correct but in the the the invention clearly  card within range presented within range so you about moving so so again you have some personal action presenting the card to the recognition device and the record in the winter to actuate is there really a distinction there between moving the car to the recognition device to  aka both of them with choir actuation through the pressing of buttons those are the only two references that were distinguished and they're expressly distinguished on the grounds of manually actually in the communication that's what's reflected in the claim a minute what's critical isn't exactly how the actuation is occurring what's critical is when should the two devices is beginning the communication and the distinction that was made in the or by kicking it or stepping on it the point is the initiation of the unification is initiated by the recognition device so that the card can now be passive with no buttons no display like a little passive car that wall become familiar with today that was the distinction not whether it was buttons or not but the actuation no longer came from the information transmitter that distinguish the references that was made expressed and nowhere that