second was a misapplication of this court's case we believe that the principle error in evaluation of the disclosure convention is articulated at pages a seven and eight the court's opinion where the court states that the patent suit describes an invention primarily for the single purpose processing job of light to rather than operating in multiple moods or customization by end users that  is configured to perform each of the functions claimed where the court erred your honor is in looking to on claims software the court acknowledged the claims were directed to hardware and based on the declaration of our expert which is not contest the what's called digital hardware accelerator to execute register them as much it's pretty clearly agreed in your brief that you couldn't perform the function without the j tech software my wrong amount of the hardware is present and without modification are arguing an incorrect claim from structure yes it did that in that sense you know saying configured to is different from capable on in that sense your honor yes so long as the court construed the claim as directed to hard work and the way we had advocated configured to it with transistors in the wires are situated such that  which talked about software which was a locked but present in the device as shipped as well as the silicon graphics case which was directed against a hard working potence that while not functional without an operating system the operating system was not that's i think that's the crux of the argument that the software has a lot of an element of any claim and it is true that the processor or the c p u by itself doesn't perform any function it it must have software programmed in order to have this function programmed by software rather we claimed a configuration of hardware circuits which would have this function and an under artisanal just to an automobile that is capable of running like a key situation which was him to go i mean the software is not there it's not the to have to activate the software that's within the system it's not there you have to bring it in right configured to operate in the page mode but it still had that inherent capability we believe that's the analogy that if the claim was run the software and there are other claims in the past and i would point to community six in the brief which claim both the software without adding software which is not played that's true but the inherent properties of the c p u would allow for that if just as the addition of download key would allow that in that sense in case the addition of dyke and so yes you're certainly right that if the if a product is sold where the end user can access the claimed functionality for example with an activation code or key then then perhaps you  modified other than boy outing software as the testimony of the on thirty six witness shows and that set a three seven seven for an after the the the addition of the j tech software interacts with the hardware and so it changes gates in the hardware that modify storage in the hardware that registers in the hardware so it isn't a situation like fantasy sports or honor or finch and where the user is able to activate already extant properties it was the hardware itself would have to be changed and that is understood on this really have no response access the clean functionality these products cannot process they're not capable of processing java in the hardware and that is a limitation of every single one of these kinds so and that that really should i thought i thought a minute ago you were arguing that the hardware itself was insufficient in other words just having the software doesn't make the case before adding the software would interact with the hardware to modify well it's both neither it's not just like plugging in the software the software would interact with the hardware and would change registers in the in the hardware in other words would affect the way circuits flowed through the hardware so it would basically switch they've come back and said a software hardware distinction and that what we're arguing is that they're making a distinction between software hardware i don't think that this thing can you can find this court cases i think the court basically says for apparatus claims hardware point for us to be correct because i think it's a fish and that the functionality is completely unavailable to our injures or is whether you focus on our product as a whole or whether you focus on just the processor within the products as we sell them to the  situation processor for processing stat based instructions no it can't be you can take it and you can you can put in a system and you can alter it with the software of the phosphor it's not like silicon graphics works just a means to give it an environment in which to operate that software has to go in there and entirely reconfigure the registers which are set by default in a certain way but citation that the argument was made i understand the argument that this wouldn't have the capability without the soft but i don't recall the argument that the hardware standing alone was insufficient software seems to be an argument that the hardware isn't sufficient just to just i don't think that there's any fact issue here on our side i don't think that we dispute that the silicon etchings exist but they point to and on as the implication of that in the context of the how to get it again direct according to the description of figure two of the sixty three sixty two thousand three hundred forty six fifty two which explains claimed and that the addition of software is just not claimed and that the use of the bypass of the hardware accelerator to execute legacy applications is an expressive contemplated benefit of the invent