confidentiality that knows that all the bricks are marked non confidential save the compaq three which appears to mark confidential things that fall into the category of standard legal argument and it really looks as though compaq has paid no attention to our rules in this respect so i would ask you to please review that and  if you can remove the confidentiality morty's or lose as many of them are as possible and file a new version of the brief that's in compliance with our standards well why don't you discuss that with them it's hard to see any basis for confidentiality marquees here particularly since the same subjects in the same things are discussed in the other briefs without any confidentiality marking clear is absent from our board for the proposition which i think matters here that the intervening rights analysis depends on comparing the before after claims as soon construed under philip's correctly construed i'm not quite sure what the right language is but not under the  reasonable interpretation were seems to me to be correct and that is that that is the philip standard it's the philips standard with one tweak under later and that is that in in determining what the original plans provided you look to see what happened in the reexamination proceeding and if there is there a rejection and an amendment to overcome claims scope that becomes highly relevant to the interpretation not a per se rule but highly relevant the correct be highly relevant and you are right but that's it that's a departure from the pillocks rule in the sense that if our sole tests were to see what the claims meant before the reclaim a nation you wouldn't take look to see whether there was a rejection and overcoming the rejection by the minute of the claim in the rig's emanation proceeding and yet later in tells us that that's not only relevant but highly relevant so in that sense it's a little different than the celts process that's about user interface does the whole case go away or is that user interface rule somehow more limited just to see games the direct infringement by se argument i think that some of the claims are still that infringing because of the command portion i don't follow that entirely if they seem like they're basically all doing the same thing ashley there's different portion of this case assume we agree with you on intervening rights assume we disagree with you about user interface you're still preserving some kind of command argument for some of the claims but not all of the claims right that interface argument because seems to me that some of the claims that talk about user interface also they all have the command thing working through the user interface so if you don't have a user interface as properly construed by the but then when it gets to commands portion it refers back to deep processor isn't that kind of a way typical way of writing claims to refer to block the same processor and not more than what processors wanted is if you agree by the way that the prevailing on the user interface issue does not in the case in total or even and the case has to see time the examiner if you did the the rejections before eventually allowed with the change exam then it was careful to say the language the language was respect to the left as opposed to sender marine polymer they kind of instead of amending the claim language they could have said because in our view it's absolutely clear that the original claim is limited to seek was for our indirectly meant one thing but not not the other i just don't get the principle you don't need a screen you don't need something that is i think part of your language was asked the site of the fuser because most software is not that and software was expressly added to the claim construction if you give them an opportunity to register disagreement with the addition of that word and you particular components of your hard drive with which through long enough wires or something then user can interact to make the choice that is the whole point of that piece of the ima engine between the user interface that allows indirect access to the ultimate thing you're trying to control and the device the two devices interface and that the time getting a grip on exactly what this distinction is with a claim construction that uses the word indirectly that includes software which is not actually a physical thing but that generates something else between user interfaces and some other kind of interface it is and i keep reading inch of the attempts to give a characteristic that captures or defines that intuition and i find a problem with every one of the characteristics and so i  so when i was trying to understand what is the role in the technological advance played by the user interface i have a hard time finding anything other than a mechanism of giving an instruction a examiner whose characterization of an argument during which being damaged then went on to to say say something and that was not actually words and later