throughout the course of the prosecution and when the panacea that's or the backgrounds of the prosecution that we think that wasn't really taken into account by the district court making its determination of the definition of any process the second component one of the appendix but maybe if maybe claim one should have been written in a more narrow fashion that i don't know but it is not our job to rewrite the claim as i understand it and i understand its course president and that but i believe when viewed in the context of what that the fact remains that the claim was so low that it was not up to us to go back and redo it no i don't believe that's true but with the intrinsic record and the specification is clear even with respect to figure seven that the information in the barcode can either be the barcode the information itself that can be scanned by the scanning process or that the scanning process can information that is a link or call to a database column six lines thirty five through thirty seven which the district court relied on so that in the context of this system the linear barcode information can represent an address for look at that language is permissive it can represent it it is not mandatory it is not that it must represent an address for a look up in the context of figure seven but there's more in the description in after discussing that the information can represent a link or a call or a pointer to a database the specification is quite clear that an additional way of using this information for example for scanning products is also contemplated scanned part seven hundred may include a universal product code or u p c scanning part seven ten  additional information about this product such as a description or picture the specification goes on to state both parts of the barcode may represent information about the product so even in the context of figure seven itself the specification is clear that the information in the barcode can be the information itself or the information in the barcode can be a link or call to a database the figure seven embodiment represents both alternatives at the district court correct place found were covered by broadly reciting scanning process other portions of the specification a clear as well and that includes figure for now figure four is referenced in the discussion of figure seven when the permissive language can that is the information can represent the link or call to a database there's a reference also made to figure four and figure four is clear as well and the description in the specification with respect to figure four is clear in stating at lines twenty four thirty three a column the contents can directly represent that information in which case the information is input to the to the client alternatively the information can represent a pointer to a database to a database the figure for embodiment which is referenced by figure seven is clear that there is an alternative information the contents can directly read represent the information or the information can represent a pointer t a database other portions of the specification are clear as well in fact in three separate instances in the specification of the patents he explains that alternatively the information can represent a pointer to a database while the information can also represent a barcode can represent the actual information itself and that is what's captured by the district court's construction of scanning process it's not that the database is excluded it is that it is included along with the barcode representing the information now miss folders also referenced the prosecution history we believe the prosecution history supports the district court's construction as well in two separate ways in the originally filed claims claim forty seven stated that the barcode represents an address and claim forty eight indicated that that address could point to a database by including those claims it was clear that the patents he knew how to recite claims that were limited to database access and that distinguishes the claims that were pursued and that ultimately issued here the same is true with respect to the reexamination in reexamination the patent he added new claim twenty three and in nuclear twenty three which includes language very similar to the claims wanted to end here the patentee added language that the first barcode scanning process links to at least one database that shows as well that when the pants he wanted to  include claims with database access you know how to do that in fed ex's view there is no ambiguity in the intrinsic record because there is no ambiguity in the intrinsic record there's no need to look at or a call to a database and be clear that functional ability which is how our taxes the claims must be the prior art includes clearly and unambiguously in the two eight nine patents in the i s o nine hundred ninety nine standard and in the can be x and that's all it says is it said can be x can be z we would understand including x y and z in the definition of scanning process but in terms of what that's getting process does at that point a specification and turning to councils argument regarding claims forty eight claim forty eight depended from claim forty or forty seven which also from claim forty and it's going to process was in use in that invention for was described as being drawn to forming a communication with the barcode forming supplemental information in the examiner concluded that these two inventions were related one of the process and one as an apparatus for performing that process so we believe that because there are interrelated as such one was a process and the other was the apparatus to perform the process the use of words getting process and database access interchangeably in regards to therefore we do believe that this different standard all the standard is very different from the standard used obviously and advocated by this court to construe the claim terms under rules of claim construction as advocated by this court and philips the standards are different we'd also like to note that the reexamined at this moment is not a final decision and we'd also caution that using statements in the prosecute using statements in the reexamined could set a dangerous precedent that the