it doesn't limit his invention to boilerplate language for him he's saying that other electrical engineers at the time of this invention would have known that other ways to provide a unique identifying number for a transmitter could be done so if you look at for for arm that he created because under one fall he has to do that so he doesn't go through in described other ways but under the case law here just because you describe one environment doesn't mean that his that's correct there are others that exist and it wasn't a point of novelty in this invention hardware and coded it to work way of novelty you would have described it more he wanted gone into it more but it wasn't in the plain language in the first the application and it wasn't in any of the arguments that he made to to the p t o to get this invention allowed so looking at also connect back it again the district court erred on it when it imported harbor and coded the number and to connect back it in if you look at the reasonings that the district court chose to rely on for the unique harboring code identification number which is that one part of the sentence it includes status data into the claim language but then forget the rest of it which is the two byte identifying number so that reasoning internally is inconsistent for the district court to do that and that was improper to import the limitations into the claims and also if you look at the prosecution history for connect packet that limitation is included in claim taht it's not included in claims one through four but in claim five transmitter to the equipment and be comparing the identification number that's the same number in each transmission received by the equipment was a previously doesn't need identification number that's a different number and so mr  actually his invention covers more than one number being designated between the transmitter and the consul in the district court again eric meant it when important limitation saying that had to be the same number and had to be the same har improper struck the opposition and on that basis found that there was no opposition to the summary judge it motion and therefore entered summary judgment in intended favor that's kind of an interesting in you know somewhat unique  circumstance because here we are evaluating or purportedly evaluating the claim construction when there is no connection between the claimed destruction and the entry of summary judgment and that's because the crime construction was changed is as copper propose and in some respects district court found its own way of construing the claim that was proposed by neither nintendo nor copper my point your honor was that the claim construction wasn't connected to the judge for your hearing that this was a concession and apparently it was a concession and in part because there was no challenge the district court's order striking the opposition and frankly when i was the opposition if they don't prove all of their chrome construction then it so well is that also there is nothing in the record to indicate that they would prevail if the claim construction were reversed right that there's nothing florrie pointed to about every transmitter unit has a unique hardware and coded identifying number that and character in column seven of the suspect and copper propose that the construction of identification number should include and recommendation both scratch their head and say why is it proper mr kopper to include unique and then not include hardware and code it and that was one of the factors in their decision another was in so it was explaining that there are other possibilities it also said we're using this controller to control the cursor on a computer monitor but you could also use it to control lights or sound equipment  the fingerprint is unique to us but what's the other part the importance of it the other important part is that it doesn't change right says it is my fingers on my finger prints on file then they know whoever's looking for a week from now a year from now five years from now if they see my fingerprint they know that i'm the one with f ing or print and in the context of the invention when you read the claim that's exactly what the identification numbers use the transmit it's identifying which transmitter came from but it's knowledge that identification number isn't changing so the next time the receiver gets that every cation number it knows that it's from that same transmit identification number and what's really going on here is this was an invention that was conceived or at least the application was filed in one thousand nine hundred one at a time where blue tooth didn't exist it wasn't what was later developed technology and so there was nobody skilled in the art at the time of the invention circuit one thousand nine hundred one that was thinking of anything other than hardware coded identification numbers i'm happy to address your honour's you correctly i mean it's reasonable to say the hardware and herded is the way you can make an identification number one the transmitters but it's not the only way and the claim language is broader than that in the what happened in this invention is there are multiple o i really urge this court to not allow this improper thing construction to stand because it improperly important potations into the claims thank you so much