ok the st issue on this appeal is a straightforward claim construction dispute the district court narrowly construed the term and coded information stream imposing a physical contra do any limitation scheme that is contrary to the specification and the technological field of the invention turning to the specification column six is the only portion of the specification information stream as long as the fields can be found according to predetermine logic the district court determined that this language did not resolve the claim construction dispute because it's admittedly talking about fields with given encoded information stream and not about whether the fields of encoded information stream could be separated but the district court misses the point the specifications teach he demonstrates that in this particular field it is logical relationships that are paramount not the physical ordering of the bits and that is why in column six and elsewhere the patent teaches that pre determined logical borders are what matter and the purpose of the invention of the technological field further demonstrate that the reason that logical relationships are what matter here the invention is a trans coding scheme that results in compression while preserving all the information and the incoming information groups what matters to achieving the compression and transcoding is the elegance of the disclosed invention control codes location pointers transition indicators all of this in coding exists in a logical relationships expressively rejects the requirement of physical continuity in the overall field of the invention transcoding it is a field about logical relationships which is why a person of ordinary skill in the ar looking at figures three a day and three b and looking at figure six would view those as a depiction of the logical representation of the transcoding scheme and not some requirement for the physical the district court is correct in so far as it goes that that's what the passage is talking about but the nature of the invention including that passage teach about the primacy of logical relationships and the physical cont required which is why a person of ordinary skill looking at figures six would not view that as depicting the physical arrangements of the bits just like when the district court looked at figure eight dash to the accused specification which is minutely based on figure six it has all the same fields all the same bits a little bit of rearranging but that's not relevant to any issue here the district court concluded that that table which is virtually identical to figure six was a logical representation which is exactly how somebody of ordinary skill in the art would you both dash to and figure six so in our view you need only look at the specification to resolve the issue of the district court treatment of dash to kind of proves our point but if you get beyond the specification as a district court did i still think we're in we're in good shape the dictionary definitions that the district court relied on generally  have the common concept that a stream is something that is is continuous but the problem with the district courts reliance on the dick dictionary definitions is that the definitions are just of the word stream whereas the where is the disputed claim term is encoded information stream and i think this court has to make the determination of whether those definitions even apply in a world where we're construed a modified term not stream in that is correct but that of course begs the question of whether the combination is a logical combination or a physical combination which turns us to the declaration of dr that combine does that mean to have to bring in a close relationship with one through logical relationships or does it mean some kind of physical continuity and here i think the unrebutted declaration of dr nettles shed some light on this question because what he explained it nobody disputes because this is how it works when you when you're going through the transcoding in the real world like in the adoption of the standard what what you got is you create the transcoding and that goes into a super block that goes into a frame and that all gets scrambled and sent across the wire but what's maintained that entire time are the logical relationships that are depicted in figure six or figure eight dash two and it's in the standard that's the only way that the invention or the standard can actually work which is why in this technological field you look to the logical relationships that have primacy and you present the evidence that  disputes against the nonmoving party and effectively took the fujitsu standard to suggest that at summary judgment there can't be any dispute about whether it would be possible to practice to practice the standard without infringing what and then we relied on white papers that written by the primary author of the standard stephen course and then we also submitted some vendor documents but i'd like to point the court's attention to the standard itself which which i which resolves the issue that there is at a minimum a fact dispute about whether practicing the standard always involves and practicing one of the that sort of claims of sycamores patent if we look at page three  there if you're referring to the musings of the that decided expert testimony from the from the apple these experts that testimony you can you can see that the quoted portions even in the pelleas brief is just talking about it's theoretically possible to achieve the superblock don't or not i think all the experts agree that steer radically possible to create the superblock without st creating a dash through but that is not the question the question is whether practice in the standard as defined in the actual document of the standard requires the creation of a dash two and the standard document itself says that it does and that is alone sufficient to generate the fact  the fact that it might be theoretically possible to create something in the standard in a nonstandard compliant way which is what the experts are talking about really doesn't go to the question of whether we've at least generated a fact dispute on the issue of whether or not practicing the standard always requires practice in the claim relief of course the white papers get to the same issue that we that we cited and our brief when they explain her discovery still at the time  series in coded bets that is to be sent or received over the network and that corresponds to its respective information group contrary to what the appellant stated the court did not construe stream in isolation the court gave the entire term express definition of encoded information stream and that it was appropriate at that point to say what would a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effect of filing date have understood by the term stream which is what what's your response to the arrogant on the other side that  what someone understands understands the word stream to me doesn't mean much when you're just talking normal dictionary the real when the real question is what is encoded information stream and i think that the response to that is that  there's no evidence from the appellant about what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood at the time of the effective filing date their declaration from dr nettles which is full of conclusory statements and from a biased  expert not subject to cross examination basically takes off all of the warning labels that philip said this court said in philips you know don't rely on experts in those in those situations but that and that dictionary definitions from the time there's a there's a question of fact as to what when when women are seen but that is a question that the district court is able to resolve and that deserves deference under tough but it is a question of claims scope and the district court probably took that up under oath to micro realize that the parties had a dispute about what the term code information stream meant look at the specification didn't see an express definition went to neutral dictionary definitions from the effective filing date time period and properly construed the claim and gave meaning to all elements of the claim term or even if we get past the claim construction i think my most difficult part about this case is the extent to which there seem to be findings of fact with respect to what the standard features and with respect to whether or not there is insufficient circumstantial evidence to raise a genuine material issue of fact so the last minute during the summary judgment briefing period and opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment that's why there's no expert testimony in the record to support the appellant's theory and all of the experts testified contrary to  appellant attorney argument all experts agree that a dash two is a logical abstract representation that does not depict the generated signal appendix twenty eight through twenty nine and thirty eight through thirty nine including sycamores expert at appendix seven hundred and eighty five he was asked this question does a figure eight dash to depict was actually generated and sent over communications link answer well no ma'am this is showing the logical relationships that go into the transform the sixty four bits by sixty four bits by sixty four bits for each respective information group it's only after all of those sixty four dollars bits for each of the eight information groups are generated in transmit that the flag better data indicator for each of those eight information groups is actually generated and then transmitted so although the the it's commonly referred to as sixty four dollars b sixty five dollars b the sixty five dollars b doesn't come into play until the that is set and generated and the superblock that doesn't happen until five hundred or sorry four hundred and forty eight that after the end of the st sixty four bit group is encoded and sent and then this is the standard itself right there in the in the note below eight dash three says implementation is up to the implementor you don't even have to generate the entire superblock structure before you start transmitting you can just you know transmit any evidence that anyone which was testimony consistent with all of the experts in the case including dr nettles moore's expert and again at appendix eight hundred and seventy two in particular at page sixty line seventeen through twenty two that ship makers talking about the actual implementation and provisioning of the chips and says that eight x three is the format of the payload structure that that particular chip maker uses and that testimony was undisputed and and that chip maker was subject to cross examination and there's appellant had every opportunity to get different testimony from that chip maker but didn't and addition you do have the testimony of the defendant's experts doctors landing in schofield that when making the decision how to implement the standard one wouldn't implement a dash two st because all that would do was add to increase latency and the whole purpose of the g seven thousand and forty one standard is to transparent them and send them out in a different format there's also no testimony in the record about what it would mean to generate a dash to internally st and under the district court's claim construction and encoded information stream i something this continuous series of that it's actually generated that's actually sent out over the wire and that's part of the court's claim construction everyone agrees that a dash two is not what sent out the wire a dash three or cord into d nettles something like it has to be sent or received over the wire in terms of the porsche white papers the district court itself properly properly recognised that the white papers are essentially like a foreign language dictionary it's when you've got a french word in the input that's for a match it's going to be cheese in the output but how you how you say that sentence that has those words it's up you you can either start speaking as soon as you translate the st word this is a dash three or you can wait until the whole sentence has been formulated in your mind and then speak it we don't have to translate the entire foreign language dictionary before you can start speaking the  while they are facially similar in appearance have completely different functions and all of the experts agreed about that figure six is an environment of one configuration of the actual code that sent out over the network d saying agreed that that was what figure six was detecting he said that it's the actual code generated and sent over the network appendix two thousand and thirty five into one hundred and forty nine figure eight dash t as all the experts in this case agreed is it's oh it's the code components just outside you know for one itself refers to a dash two as depicting the code components and says go see figure eight dash three for the actual evidence was better rather than just deciding that it's that there it didn't raise any genuine issue of facts of the court said they were assuming the white papers were admissible and assuming th admissible and went ahead and so that leaves us in a position despite your argument that they weren't unmissable because we can't make an evidentiary ruling in the st instance so we have to assume nervous and then he says things like about the  they're ambiguous i mean they clearly show one methodology but but we can't tell whether they're excluding any other methodology why isn't that a quintessential question that it's not because in this particular just say that you have to disprove that anyone could have possibly done it any other way and doesn't say that that standard forms of proof like circumstantial evidence are meaningless so it's not like they didn't submit proof maybe they didn't prove it to what you know a juror would ultimately accept but when we're talking about things like infringement there is a lot of evidence that shows that th only way to do it yes the only possible way so but the question is what do you need to show that you need to show that it's not impossible to do it some other way and we have come up with expert testimony on the court allowed me and other evidence to indicate that it's actually being done in a different way so the court i don't think actually allowed in that evidence at the summary judgment hearing or stuck with that or well the way the courts said i'm assuming for purposes of this summary judgment that it was so that is true that the court did say that but at the summary judgment hearing sycamore actually had to disclaim reliance and the vendor documents of the white papers but instead got all these vendor documents from sycamore so at the summary judgment hearing the court said i asked you for all those you didn't give me anything about that you gave me all these other vendor documents and six more said that it was not relying on the vendor documents to show how the defendants equipment implements the standard set it was only relying on those documents to show that the white papers are consistent with the standard but even if even if it's true that there are four examples of equipment out there somewhere that implement eight dash two st before they implement a dash three that's still not enough just and i'll take the court after it was just you know for one for this particular infringement case because the  plaintiffs decided to pursue a standard spaced only infringement case which means they have to show that every possible implement station infringes they did not pursue an equipment based case  it issued that warning said you know it may be it made me fear impossible in some cases can we know when it's us but i don't know if that's one case we all know when that when you run into that problem which sycamore ran into have won that they couldn't show that the warning but the actual evidence in fujitsu the plaintiff decided it knew it had a problem with the standard as a standard didn't necessarily require it so it went and looked at four implementations and found that in four instances the product did implement the fragmentation part of the standard so they prove direct infringement for those four but for all of the other equipment they were remaining with their standards based in the infringement theory and that's why summary judgment of not infringement was a firm by th i think the dialogue with the court is made clear today there are disputed facts that go directly to the question of whether there's infringement even under the court's rodeos claim construction but i mean that we would have the burden of trial to demonstrate that every implementation of the accused entered in french is the patent that does it even though if there is a fact dispute about whether or not that's true that we automatically dung out over the wire is in a frame that's the scrambled and so forth in fact he even says page seventy six but a dash three is the superblock isn't necessarily sent out over the wire we don't have to show that's what sent out over the wire to demonstrate infringement what we have to show under the erroneous claim construction is that eight dash two is actually formed and if you look at his testimony on page seventy two dollars of the appendix he says you don't have to preserve the physical relationships we see an eight dash two in the serialized output which is at least a suggestion that he recognizes that that eight dash two is actually formed and even if a pelleas characterization of d testimony is accurate that at a minimum creates a fact dispute when you have the actual standard say in that figure eight dash to the code block has to be for me and my friend made the point that  was somehow different in figure six because of the use of the word code but coach code just proves the point code is this now i'm reverting back to the claim construction argument code is a logical relationship so just like you could have figure eight ash to be a logical relationship properly construed so to figure six which is referred to as a coding scheme in the description of figure six in the patent so the the fundamental problem that we had here is that the district court's determination concerning claim construction and summary judgment just simply can't be reckoned reconciled regarding claim construction the district court determined that figure six requires physical wrong because a person of ordinary skill would you both pick figures as depicting logical relationships as explained by dr nettles not rebutted by any expert on their side no one came in to say that he was wrong about the privacy of logical relationships in this field and in the district court didn't make a credibility adverse credibility determination all he did was explain how things actually work in transcoding and logical relationships are key but on the other hand if you're going to say that figure six requires physical time to do it eat contrary to the teachings of the specification and you can't interpret eight dash two differently than figure six at a minimum a reasonable jury could conclude that a dash too has to be formed