we in order for us to when we need to under two different issues we need to convince you that our claim construction is correct and in fact under that claim construction actually neither moral nor  the universe is one or more inputs then the claims take it to two critical steps and what it does is it defied the world beast one or more inputs into two categories and the purpose of the two categories is to determine if you have a scroll or gesture and everything falls into one of the two categories your scroll or gesture and then the claim says here's how you determine that you like smartphone now this fatness was filed just before the i phone was publicly announced and unlike prior devices the specification says and again i'm quoting there is a limited display size user interface software a p i interface and or processing capability so the pattern explicitly says for the smaller devices there is less device space there are constraints in hardware direct constraints in software and then it goes on to say as a consequence for these devices and again i'm quoting from column one there is difficulty interpretating the various types of user inputs and providing the intended functionality so the algorithm or the method to describe which divides the world into one input on the one hand and all other inputs on the other gives you a very simple very one input and put it in one category to get the benefit of that and take the others recognize them all it's just yours and put them in the second category and i think your honor this is the  satisfied by distinguish between one and two would not be correct and i think if i can go back to judge sauls question which you're a part in answer yours is that if you look at the specification that follows you get to the specific description of the single touch as a scroll it also describes a single touch as having an angle of a singular angle and it also describes it as having a singular speak so to go to the conclusion of judge  question the specification tells you when you have a singular angle or you have a singular speak we want to know that it's a scroll and it is and then it says if you have two or more points to judge dykes question they are gestures and there are a dozen times where the phrase two or more gestures two or more input going to say used to describe gesture and then there's your one i think i can demonstrate that if you look at figure one after after you hit the third step and you move to the fourth consistently distinguishes between one and two or more and then we actually and we look at that testimony the three expert witnesses who testified in a mislaying and we think about what's a column what you're looking for be a scroll or a gesture if you if you took figure one i think receiving user input and if we set aside animations for a second and you look at claim one you have the universe which is one or more inputs that's universe and then it says we divide that universe into either a single input or two or more so if you receive that user input at one of two that's the first part of the plane that i was identifying then you're determinate you're creating an object in response to the user input so that's where the determining and distinguishing step become important you determine whether you need a swirl of an object or a gesture of an object how do you determine that you term it  and that actually it for me answers judge likes question is on the one hand one and on the other hand it's two or more it's two three four five and i think if i were to take the example that i started to answer judge  reprimanding ok i think your argument his force that rubber be ending suggests that back rather than snapping forward so let's assume that you're correct about that ok but on the other hand if you look at the that lear or teaches situation where if you go beyond the edge of the column and you stop in it it snaps back so why isn't that  know actually has conceded that look if you take our interpretation which you need to go in this direction then when you go too far you get let's go as to your success sixty if you go in this direction we just to be there what does it with the we're on the same page so to speak as to what there are teachers we're teachers that if you go beyond the edge of the column and the examiner says the column is satisfies the claim limitation of kids who go beyond the edge of the the nine one five at is your scrolling beyond the display edge of the fact of the document and then it snaps back and then layer it if you scroll beyond the edge of the doc and there's wobbling in a horizontal direction shows snapping back when you go beyond the edge of the column and as long as you don't go too far you lift a finger up and snaps back why wouldn't that be a disclosure of the siege you are if in fact it teaches that i understand you disagree that teaches that if if your or any prior art disclose it when you explain beyond the document and more beyond the threshold and you snap back then that would be a problem for us the best indication the art to modify that to snap back and there's nothing cited for that proposition now if the salmon was reading we are in the same manner that you and i have been discussing or you've described you know what it had to say that environment and it's moving down it's moving vertically but there's horizontal deviations and what we're a teaches is we want to sort of account for that keep the column aligned in so we keep it centered and then the second one is this idea of snapping back where is if the user we're going to set a threshold the user can set the threshold turn it off we're going to account for deviations in the users or as a vertical in this case downwards scrolling the ocean left or right and decide what it is that the user wants to and perhaps even more importantly to the sense that there's any debate about the particular direction that we're is moving his content depending on whether thresholds are exceeded or not the examiner made the observation the vining it forty five to forty six the sort of the direction that this content is going to move would have been well within the orner skill in the art to pick so you know we're a both expressly teaches the rubber banding concept reflected in claim to as well made sort of the additional finding that it would have been with the artisan skill sort of account for that in it's sensical i mean as you point out in our brief there's only so many ways that the conti can move there is clearly directed at sort of the same problem at the rubber banding claim is directed to this idea of these deviations in the scrolling direction are unwanted and we have to figure out whether the user actually wants to do something with it or whether or not he's just not paying attention so that's what we are stalking about at the forty three or start for seventy six  seventy seven so the rubber banding disclose limitation is disclosed even under their interpretation which of course we would disagree that the particular embodiment in the nine one five pattern where it shows an email scrolling up and then snapping down at this idea of increased functionality on user devices where they're using a touch screen if we look at for example appendix page five forty which is in the hill i to sixty one in discussing the limitations of the prior art he says although although the foregoing approaches will always enjoy some popularity the president in present invention inventors have sought ways to improve the interface between human and computer and his disclosure goes on he's very clearly focused on this idea of we need to figure out when the user puts his finger or fingers on the screen what is it that they want us to do or not at appendix five forty two starting at roughly lines forty nine when hilla starts to get into what his invention actually is he's making very clear he says in reference to figure to a two way shows a sequence to detect and analyze contact point used for these and then no more goes on to describe particularly at pages appendix page for a wait for an eye or graph forty nine to fifty three and this is in response to an earlier question about does no more i teach scrolling in response to a single input you most assure dogs at paragraph fifty three the text of which is on appendix page four night he says in his last six the operation details determination part thirty judges finger movement history detected by the finger movement detector of action movie one finger as an input of a map school this is exactly the same portion of no more of it the examiner relied on and at the border quipped so i think under the reasonable interpretation that the p t o gave this claim user input which is all that's required by the method of claim one is one thing or or two and the only examples we have of the nine one five patent specification where i gesture assuming actually is in vote is using two fingers which is exactly like us so the board's construction in the exams construction here is reasonable in light of that claim language which uses the word or they gave the interpretation that this court has given very similar language in schumer and the other cases that we started in our brief and there's nothing in this plan that concretely says that that interpretation cannot be correct have some wobbling of the document or the thing that's on the screen and you want to be sure it stays within the window that's why if you go to eight forty four at the end of the block quote it says when  not exceed the threshold and that's the snap back fortune you refer to this is wholly different in lire when you're scrolling in the horizontal direction and you go beyond a threshold  forward there's no dispute about that and then i won five pad when you go beyond the threshold you snap back that's why it's called rubber band that's why the pattern off started with the issue that just like you and i set aside which is clip that rubber banding as defined by the patent has no directional meaning and that's simply incorrect if we say it has directional meet and we look at the claim which is what we have to do the claim limitation we don't as i said it just like we don't dispute that the question is what is correct claim interpretation and let me just say one thing about that and then two things one about phillips when  there is no finding before you that if our claim interpretation is correct that held less satisfied limitation and there's a really good reason why and it's a page a five four three  table it doesn't have the same constraints on limited display does it have the same constraints on hardware doesn't have the same constraints on software and so what help us has it says so is it for eight five four three is a protocol where the system measures as you put your finger or fingers down the force with which you put it down a velocity with which you put it down the direction of time you put it down and the direction in which you move and then a comparison that to a dictionary and the dictionary says well if you start hearing you ended there with this much force and this philosophy this input touches in our gestures so there are for sure different types of gestures the dependent claims describe them but that's what phyllis doesn't satisfy because with the claim says and it is  being able to do this on a small device it is used one finger we know it's scrolls use anything more we know it's a gesture hell west goes into that it has a set of four or five different a seventeen which is where the board said for the very first time and wealth the result might be the same under apple's claim interpretation if it did no more a way to satisfy the limitation not tell us no more ah now we come before you and we have the same argument which years if apple's perpetration is correct at an office still wins but this time it's not new mora it's tell us