direct your attention to page two of the reply brief where we have a claim chart on the left of excerpts from one of the representative claims with underlined terms of the issue and on the right the district judges construction i will begin with the claims that would be the opposite of a of a stop as to what the district judge did next he said interpreted the word microcontroller to be a very very very narrow device that could not shipment and the again the claims just use the word memory they don't say where the memory is they don't say whether the they don't use the term program memory they are using generic terms because this is a software invention are part of neely the c e o of sun micro gives us this graphic golf in a telephone booth notion why isn't that a disavowal they're saying job is the golf right job would mean you need a golf course to play golf because it needs a large virtual memory in the megabyte range and it needs a lot of what the invention was here if you look at column seven through eighteen they made the virtual memory smaller so it fits in the phone booth and then they made the code different so it works on the new virtual machine so you have these two combinations of a software invention which is what they did so it would work on  microprocessors running a big job what they did at the time was said well what are the other types of computers and there are these embedded computers that are smaller and they can access chips but they still have limitations they figured out a different virtual machine and then a different set of code to run on those smaller devices those devices can have chips that they access off chip just like the a m d in the motorola patent show we sighted a blue refit thirteen five or six different references t show that my controllers of course can access off chip now they're still going to be limited fast forward to today and we just have a different type of a device they're packed into a phone they're limited and they're using the converted java virtual machine in the converted code just on and in that a device they are not using the big job on these devices it would be like the analogy picking something really big let's say a six by six by six foot print but you had a movie and you put it in a truck but then you wanted to convert it down smaller and you could then put it in a van well you could put a lot of other things you could put it back in the truck it would save space it doesn't mean that you have not taught the new virtual machine which is much smaller and then the new device that it would operate on and just as an example the two patterns there's there's not a programs and again the claim doesn't say that it's his memory if you look at the claim that it wants to it wants the program to be working with the interpreter it's in it's actually doing it it's operating on the program it's working where it's stored before it's loaded is relevant it's relevant to the invention here it's relevant to the inventors here the district judge made a third error and he said that when you stored that program when you powered down it has to be in permanent memory permanent isn't even a term of art they would have used nonvolatile they didn't and there are other claims again the seven to seven  of it didn't do so here and the specification talks about nonvolatile involved from memory and doesn't the claim doesn't limit it so what this invention was was taking job of th on a microprocessor with huge amounts of memory you know card after card and hard bits and it would not work on these other type of device would not work on a smaller device so they made a different virtual memory they got a lot smaller and made a different code and they got a lot smaller what they're doing now is the same thing we have our desktops today and then we have in better devices the desktops use regular java there's no reason not to  devices use this converted virtual machine and started to convert a java on a new virtual machine there was nice to doing that but they say that the embedded devices today still have limitations on the amount of memory they have and speed and things like that what you say it programmable device and the microcontroller different of it i think the statement the question answers to the question is answered by itself programmable device doesn't have to be just  it could be different types of devices that are programmed and what they wanted here was the new virtual machine which is a different kind of a computer within a computer running new code they  know i think what they were doing at the time was you're on the we're program of the device doesn't appear in this and so if you look at column five for example the upper left corner just like it is true that this plan would work with a microcontroller but it's not true that it will only work with a microcontroller that stores program memory or ship when you power down so something that's capable of working on something doesn't mean that's the only thing that would ever work on especially in the day of electronics where things will evolve so take an example it said memory let's assume it said nonvolatile memory and let's assume they describe rom and they were just storing it wrong but then five years later you have disks and five years after that you have flash memory if they use memory and if the invention works on all the other types of memory it's just irrelevant when you start the claims are bro enough so classic example of covering memory of that type nonvolatile memory of that type as we have here we have devices which are really not invention that run this smaller much more efficient type of program the way it does the current use devices are not your desktop and pure they are just invented devices that have limitations just like the embedded devices have limitations and ninety six everything has moved granite but it's relative that you know your your desktop is much more powerful and much faster and the better devices and has more memory they are still using this invention they're not running  naked job a big job of programs on the better devices they don't want to take too much space would lock up the system it would take a lot of time they want to use the invention which is the software techniques of a new virtual machine with  the invention actually at issue here is well put in the title of every one of these patents using a high level programming language with a microcontroller and the distinction that of the claims mention all  then particularly in light of the differentiation between claim one and claim for or claim for has a portion of the memory in the process sure well  i'll deal first with the first part first and then claim for second first the reason why the all program memory makes sense and the construction really boils down to the dispute that the court was was seeking to resolve  here our devices there's no dispute use microprocessors and the specification talked about that these microprocessors had access to external memory and that the microcontrollers at issue here  were limited in terms of all types of memory that were to be on the microcontroller they were all on the semiconductor substrate if you look at and  to claim i'm sorry line fourteen it says the amount of each kind of memory available is constrained by the amount of space on the integrated circuit card used for each type of memory column this is disavowed with there's nothing being this about it and learned a couple disavow well the claim doesn't cover it's cover doesn't contain the all program memory limitation that you're suggesting it must we have a clear indication from claim for that it's not supposed to be limited to all program memory so about the only thing you can show its is that they have clearly disavows anything except with super fortress the invention well first of all that the claim for all claims for says is that a portion of the memory is located in the processor and maybe is what the spec says the spec says and call them for a portion of the memory may be located in the process right and all that is saying is that and then if you  back to claim one it refers to meaning that doesn't have to be all right no but that's we're not saying the processor that is being referred to there is the c p u it's the c p u that's on the microcontroller if you microcontroller includes its central processing chip i'm sorry central processing unit memory and other functional elements all on a single semiconductor substrate for integrated circuits the memory that is being referred to in that claim is the memory that could be on the central processing unit that's the cache memory that fight the fist trying to later on try to after that fork made the program memory construction they tried to read the cache memory which is this very small temporary memory that is used to help the execution of the c p u and it's on that c p u and so that's what that point for is talking about it does not say at all that the microcontroller comprising and then or yes and then it talks about if nothing about being a cache it says the integrated circuit card of claim one where in a portion of the memories located a portion absolutely that claim on it which also doesn't mention cache all always have less than all no well let's say first of all the memory is noted if you look at the plane first of all requires an integrated  car so there's no dispute that that's the limitation that it has so first we have to decide what an integrated circuit cards and the integrated circuit card is a microcontroller it is a card that has this microcontroller play that seems to back away from that now but earlier on in the case they said explicitly that the integrated circuit card is a narrow set and is narrower than where does that come from how can that be justified in light of the specification that says it may be a portion a alternative claim that says it may be a portion and nothing in the claim language itself that says it has to be all programmable memory please help me out it's the definition of what a microcontroller is the patent talks about how it has the memory the these three types of memory ram and the e p run and the memory that we're talking about here is a memory that's required to run the application the whole point of this thing is to is to run job of these java programs on the microcontroller and the distinction that was being raised both in the specification and in the prosecution history is that the microprocessor systems had access to this external memory to run these programs if you if you allow a microcontroller to access this external memory to run the programs you take away the entire problem that the patents was coming to solve and all that is referring to claim for all that it is referring to is that the portion of the memory that is referred to in column in claim one which is a memory storing and then it has an application and then it says what this application does all it means is that a portion of that memory can be on the processor the c p u that's on a single semiconductor substrate it does nothing to to say that it can be off ship because the pattern is very clear that the memory has to be on chip in a microcontroller so it's just all that is talking about is saying in claim one the memory that is referred to the part of it can be on the c p u that is on the the chip that has the the processor and the the memory and when we're talk and it's very clear in the patent that we're talking about all three types of these memories and that the memory the the memory that we're talking about is the program that brings the memory to run the java program and what the court found correctly is that when as compared to what the patents were saying is that as compared to these you're trying to say the reason we should ignore the specification and the alternative claims is because you use the problem to be solved by this invention as x and so in order to get to your narrow claim construction we have to agree with you that the only problem putting the minimum there will examples but those are examples and not binding and they haven't disavowed at least i haven't heard you say they've clearly an unmistak just like i said the one of the places where they say in contrast to the microprocessor a microcontroller includes a central processing unit memory and other functional elements all on a single semiconductor substrate or integrated circuit a chip and the memory that we're talking about is referred to right below it refers to the ram the rom and the e p rom and it says in the microcontroller the amount of each kind of memory available is constrained by the amount of space on the integrated circuit card for each type of memory and when we're talking about the end it with what the mat the memory that we're talking about here is this is the memory to run these programs to run these java programs it's the explicit distinction between the microprocessors which did not have to have all of this and this tiny chip they could access all the ram they wanted they can access all the rom they wanted in these microprocessor systems that indisputably ran java before and so they defined it in this way because that's what microcontrollers are and it was the way that they were able to distinguish the prior art if you for example in the prosecution history this dolphin it on a phone with the prior art that they were trying to distinguish that's an analogy that's not a definition and by the way they don't tell you what the telephone booth is that's not a concession to the gulf in a phone booth they do tell you it says explicitly that they were referring to putting java on a smart card the smart card is the phone basically what they want to now try to say is that patent applies to even desktop computers the same desktop computers that ram job afore they want to they want to say that there's no limitations these memory limitations are gone that there's no limitations for it to be on chip even though the construction requires that the amount of each kind of memory available is is on the chip and the processor or the c p u is on the chip so it's perfectly consistent with our construction to say that a portion of that memory may also be on the processor claim for in no way is saying that a portion of the memory may be on a microcontroller that's not what it says it all is says the processor and the processor is the c all that when the specification is talking about a process that a portion of the memory may be in the process or that what they're really talking about there is the microcontroller it's you know it's common parlance that a c p u is the central processing unit that an invention which is directed towards nine hundred ninety s technology can be used in two thousand and ten technology are understood and i think that the easiest way to say that is that we're at the defendants  using the technology that nobody disputes existed before we're using microprocessors we're using microprocessors that access off chip memory and that's no different than the desktop processors that i'm sorry the desktop systems that use microprocessors to access off chip memory and so the yeah it could advance but there we were or the prior art was already at the point of the microprocessor systems that we're using in our systems so it can advance but we're we're using microprocessors and the patents talk about microcontrollers talk about  cards but doesn't smart cards cover a lot of different involving embodiments including just programmable devices which is a lot broader than micro well none of the claims refer to smart cars there's there's two kinds of integrated circuit cards and that is the spec spec does sure but i think it also were basically refers to smart card interchangeably with an integrated circuit card which also was less commonly known i don't think that that's and programmable device that is referred to in the specification at all is a microcontroller there's nothing else in the specification that is programmed as part of this invention other than the microcontrolle it refers to in other embodiments the above described techniques are used with a microcontroller and then a few down it says most existing design devices and new designs that utilize a micro controller could use this invention to provide the ability to program the microcontroller using a high level language because there's no plain ordinary meaning a program will devise we have to go to the specification this is the only place in the specification that talks about you know programming a device and it's this microcontroller and that's how the court found it and really the court did that ultimately in a way because that was word processor means c p u so it says that it's a c p u will have some memory on the same chip but it doesn't only access that memory as we've shown you with patents and these devices can access additional memory if you look at figure twenty five which had the circuit board what we're saying here is you have a micro you have a device and then can you have a chip next to it that has some additional memory that's all we're saying it doesn't mean it turns into a desktop computer but it is still in that it is accessing able to access off chip memory for it to run it has to run on the chip doesn't have to be loaded this is just where these programs are stored and so the way they wrote the claims is you load the interpreter you load the program does make a difference where you load it from and it runs and that's exactly what they said here if you i do dispute modern day desktops so even a device i could hold my hand has limits just like the smart cards and the i c cards and they talk about them and they have limits here and they're doing the same think the that my opponent says all this is about is the hardware it's running on that's the opposite of the issue the issue is are they running this converted languages convert program they are and they're running it on a bet a device that at page seven twenty five refers to it is a modern day microcontroller so what would be a microcontroller today versus then everything has no less point i want to make is there seems to be t java on the very small place that this not me has to run only on the smallest of devices that doesn't even exist if you put another chip next to it it's only kilobit memory it doesn't have massive amounts of memory doesn't equate to a desktop mainframe but you can have a circuit board just like figure twenty five with additional memory to store some of the additional programs that's all  case is excel