embodiment in the patent not as a definition in the language of the provisional which is a publication it says the following we use capstone a tool that transforms binary files into hexadecimal files the byte sequence feature is the most informative because it represents the machine code in the executable instead of the resource information like live b s d features by the way that sentence does not appear in that way in the specification it is changed in the specification but more importantly the paragraph goes on and says secondly analyzing the entire binary gives more information part but is this a definition of byte sequence feature in the specifications of the patent and i think the answer to that question your honor is not so the answer to my earlier question if your contention is the meaning changed between the fight sequence features using text on a second dividing and which involves extracting another kind of byte sequence features which are byte strings representative of resources which are referenced by the executable and another third which  talks about how they compare to each other here you have to step into the switch talk about byte sequence let's assume we disagree with you about the claim construction anything for this record out right does that mandate his conclusion on invalidity i found that invalidity argument or decision kind of hard do you agree that if it's a district court adopted the right claim construction that your patent is also invalid under one twelve but it's very hard to understand your honor because the court did not give much guidance in terms of what the court met as far as i can tell the court was saying that machine code instructions are a different animal then byte stream is representative of i think the answer is yes because i think there are are circumstances in which machine companies can be involved with bytes trends which are representative of the resources used referenced by the executable but that was initially thought was never addressed in that way authority an argument that even if it is even if it's right is still an issue with respect to whether or not the coin is in doubt and we did not take that additional step your honor because we didn't think we had to we think that the claim that we think that the language the words of the claims are totally different they address completely different things the one fifteen family patent is about detecting anonymous program executions the always for family is about detecting intrusions into the of normal computer usage which is generated from what warhol normal records you don't have that you won't be infringing his patent the question is can you do something else too can somebody t and say you know what i've got an add on that will make that even better i'll give you an example but the patent talks about here is essentially finding  deviations so to speak from normal accesses to the registry not every one of those is going to be malicious doctors be deviations someone up the militias some  did you really mean only and the district court said yes i meant only this the only thing you can do the claim becomes a closed set and that's the problem with the overweight for computer system usage which appear nowhere in the specification or the prosecution history and just brought them over and talked about defining it from anomalous as requiring a tax free data well the major problem with that would be claiming eight and same eighteen and same twenty nine and same thirty nine s all of what's safe the exact same fence they're all dependent claims to the independent claims of the patent and they all say the model reflex attacks against the at least a part of the program and the first rule of claim construction is that you start with the words of the problem i understand though it's where has all that normal language when it talks about generating model i don't see anything in that one to a team where it talks about using a tax free data or normal data or anything it just has a model of a function call hand in terms of the specifications of pan you're correct there are statements there statements about a normal computer system usage and that's how the models freighted it doesn't use the term attack for you there are references in the provisionals there are incorporated by excluded tactic right but with fit it does talk about normal computer system usage and normal computer system usage the common understanding is that would be a tad freedom because that object the fact but the question is how to get  this problem as they can nominate detector one of which is to detect anomalies for the windows registry which would be the o s for family patterns and also for process execution which is the one one five failing at so in that provisionals referring to so the way that it's done in the system to create a model of normal usage and then when you receive when you're running the system to try to detect attacks and you compare the received event whatever that is  underfoot when it was an obvious mess one of three combination and with specifically with respect to climate dependent claiming the examiner says food is not explicitly disclosed the model reflects a ta the at least of part of the program it would have been obvious to one of the workers on the air at the time of the invention to have modified food as taught by chan because the models allow well known attacks to be so the examiner read it depending claiming exactly as semantic is arguable in this case that what the pending claim eight adds is the notion that it will detect the taps so i think counsel said that there so that doesn't create a claim differentiation problem at all your honor and i think that's why this court's precedent says that claim differentiation is a guideline and not a not a hard and fast rule because often times there are facts such as these where claims radiation doesn't give you guidance because there is a very natural reading of the claim it's that was also the same reading the examiner came up during the prosecution's understood during the prosecution history the pattern that maintains the description of this probabilistic anomaly detection system and how these models are trending that they're created and columbia agrees with anonymous and then the question becomes what is normal and in the specification of these patents and in the prosecution excuse me at the prosecution history in the provisionals that are incorporated by reference the discussion of what normal computer system usage is is directly consistent with the discussion in the zero eight four family of athens because it's the same probabilistic anomaly detection system that you're using only as a provisional s applied in a different context leading to a different aspect of computer system usage rather than registry usage attacks which is what they are always for family patents this is program execution so where is the specification w really only two columns for five and a little six where they're talking about the creation of the model a lot of the rest of the patent deals with patches and and fix if a code and repair are recovering from errors but in that section of the pattern income for it talks about  can be used to train model for detecting anomalies this model may be an absence of density estimation where the estimation of density function of x over normal data allows the definition of anomalies as data elements that occur with low probability meaning you define anomalies as those things that are not normal which is exactly what columbia agrees is the normal definition of anomalous so the way he's going back to the way the systems are described to work your honor and the explicit discussion in some of the provisional application if you include attack data now that attack either by definition becomes the norm such that when it appears turning the that's a different the patent does talk about that the patent talks about adjusting the threshold for example of that in other words you have to model your honor and you would according to the statement you would look at it particular event you know this is why the computer is running and trying to protect against attacks you look at a particular venue and say oh this is a low probability event based on my model now it may be a situation where that say you're installing a new file from the operating system which didn't occur during your training phase the creation model and such so what the patent says is that you can go ahead because you know that's not an attack you can ignore those things so i've read that the patent talks about the fact that you may be able to use knowledge of the taps in order to adjust the threshold in order to do things like repair other sections of the code that have the similar vulnerabilities that you've detected it happened before but none of those actions talk about using a tax to change the model and the and the provisional applications in particular or that the papers are incorporated the provisional applications explain that doing so creates a problem because of those that attack data your honor is part of the model then it's perceived as normal because you're creating a situation with  to not be used to create the model so in other words it wouldn't be part of the dataset that he used to create the model in that example and that's what we're talking about here so it ended in a court according to the teaching  situation that you've just described would be part of the adjustment the threshold in determining when things are flagged as anomalies whether i'm going to sound an alarm and have that be flagged as an attack but that isn't according to the teaching of the patents a modification of the model itself which still consists of normal data problem with that is you can't by virtue of the factors comprising claim reaching the each and every element and change the element the problem is the always for patent specification define the very clearly that the model normal computers system usage is created from a tax free day and so what the district court merely recognized is you can't then use attack data to create a model and still meet that out of it that's where the only attack data for something else for example at the i just gave you one where you would be adjusting the threshold for that's a completely separate question what was stipulated to the summary judgment that was stipulated to and the claim construction before the district court is whether in creating the model of normal computer system usage you can use attack data and the district court said no because that would obliterate that element and that's what the real issue is so the sun tiger case doesn't  in the sense that they are the issue was while you apply this great coding and that change the transmissive of the characteristics of a lens except for this one little piece on the lower right corner and we're going to read man for a determination as to whether that's enough or infringement that's not what we're talking about here what we're really this is more like a different data case where you know the question that was an element that required formation of b and the accused product it happened to make some  there so that's exactly what we have with the other eight for patent your honor which is a situation where columbia is trying to use the comprising argument to reach in and obliterate the requirements of creating the model of a normal computer system us the specification of the five for four patents fundamentally negates the proposition that mind sequence feature is limited to machine code you can find that in columns three hundred thirty seven argument oriented me just a moment to speak to the five for four because the specification really does conclusively negate a conclusion that by sequence feature means machine code instructions is in fact in the paragraph discussed in the preferred machine code that preferred embodiment is excluded from the patent by that definition this is from the final specification moreover in the discussion about the fight sequence feature in the final machine code in executable and the next sentence says in addition this of this approach involves analyzing the entire binary rather then fortune such as header and approach the consequently