it please the court we are here because the district court construed for terms into related patents at issue to include limitations that are not supported by the specification and in fact run contrary to the express disclosure of the specifications of this patent since it three of these terms referred to the term device we have security device we have never communication device we have input output device the court incorrectly construed each of those devices to be standalone external to and separate from other devices again contrary to the express disclosure of the specification the fourth term is point to point id with reference to non point to point communications without actually dealing with what is expressing disclosed about point to point communication session that negative limitation is also not supported by the specification writers i'll speak first about the device terms in general microsoft claims that you cannot take the place term out of the claims from which it's being construed and that argument is incorrect in fact that the court below they provided definitions of device and indeed the district court used that term device as its foundation for considering the device terms as separate standalone and next kernel it didn't rely on the adjectives occurring before both related they consistently i use a term device in context in which one device may be a component of another device they don't have to be standalone so for example in figure two dependent upon the presence of a network communication device and an input up a device but the rest of the language is in communication with said selected ports we're not just looking at existence presents we're looking at there could be constant existence and simply not in communication so we have to look beyond simply the presence but we have to look at the presence in community when it says dependent on presence that could be broad enough to include it ever communication and this is consistent with the six eight seven patterns discussion of the term device where it doesn't require separateness it doesn't require housing again this electronic patent were not everything is devices pretty bride and it doesn't require separate is that word of last night i don't understand how in communication changes when you have to have selecting a configuration dependent upon the presence how that would include just being always present again i think it comes down to the president's the presence in communication with so for example you may have a higher key where you say the device is going through a selection process and it wants to go with a first port checks whether there's a connection there and if there's not a device there then it moves to the next port and if there is a device there but there's no communication for example it's not turned on or it may be something that has to be activated and then you go to the third  in the six eight six packets we have we also have figure one now and the go labs case from this court has said that invention doesn't necessarily need to look like the figures and we have figure one talking about a computer phone and a facsimile machine and then a security device now where did the separate standalone and external phrases come from it really came from microsoft's characterization of this figure in effect the district court elevated the value of microsoft's characterizations beyond what is actually disclosed in the patent to the patent says that box fifty is the for example you won't see the prosecution for three in the drug critics in fact neither party relied upon it because there isn't any sort of the scutcheon of physical arrangement that leads to these patents being issued a couple of times and in the specification there is a reference for example at column eleven minus zero roughly twelve to fifteen to the advantage of the invention in that the security device being separate from the computer allows the encryption to be preserved even if the computer is lost or stolen that suggests to me  me return you if i could turn to what's really troubling me about this passage which is that it sounds as if it's saying one of the advantages of this invention is that you are not going to be exposed to having your  based device both in the same single entity as and a cell phone might say why isn't that pretty good support for the proposition that they're separate it so the problem isn't that they could be separate but really doesn't really work but why isn't that i mean if this is speaking about the advantage of the invention not as far as i can see specific to a limited body in that way why isn't that something that session and so the same conservative for losing your computer and or having your computer and security device taken and having that key out there for the world to use is not a concern necessarily in the point of form because that new piece is being generated differently in different settings i want to know what what you think that the use of the term is in the context of this patent you are in in the context of this patent session and the idea of what the point was is not going to form sessions deals with timing of transmission and receive well ok but what's a session if if you and i are having an exchange and we have an exchange now which goes back and forth between us we pause we stopped that  event and an hour later we have another exchange how many sessions have we had we don't if there's a pause or for example if i put data out there and then i leave the room and we wait for you to retrieve that data that would be not point to point because there isn't a real time exchange of comes if it's on you and i write i'm really trying to get to the words session in my mind as to what this means when he uses that term i sent you a message  over the internet and that's describing a pair a medium that's a characteristic of how those non point to point transitions are occurring the specification talks about an attachment to an e mail for example or a data repository where the sender is taking a file or data putting it somewhere for the receiver to then later be treated and the problem is with this packet with this part recognizes as an issue is that when you send  transmission and it's part of the same communication session both parties know what the key is there is basically a encryption decryption key created for that session and so the data transmission and the receive all is  can in the context in which both parties know what the key would be it's a temporary key for that session do you think that the patent drafters used the term i e when they met to use the associated with you we believe apply some link as opposed to a device coming out that has a security device inside of it the court this report did not rely upon solely associated with it were not solely  went through the intrinsic records and found a found correctly we believe that security device has three characteristics that stand alone separate and external this court only need to find that one of those  the internet from point to point communication what exactly do you understand the patent to and met by the term point to point well that's the that's the difficulty i think i think the what is not quite the point i think there's one pub issues that arise when you try to look at what it's talking about when it says party point it doesn't say that the party is the party don't argue that that there's a common and understood meaning of point to point out sort of the that where the patent says in these types of non real time transmission suggest that point to point might be a real time transmission would you agree with that  specifically refers to the fines point to point in connection with with internet leave that you can in an internet transmissions are often you know not you know not quote unquote real time because they are packet based communications which scrambled the transmissions and they're not quote unquote real time transmission so i think there's anything inconsistent between excluding the internet and the discussion regarding gun point nothing within specification that we believe dictates a different result is impossible is it possible to have a point to point communication session that comprises not and point to point transmissions  to point it excludes the internet if we were to reject the argument that point to point and can include the internet  but we're to conclude that point to point really should be understood to mean a type of real time transmission would that in your view change the analysis or outcome of this case given your characterization of the way the internet communicates or effects communications our position will be that they know that glee is not real time communications because it is a packet base communication  system right and that in our view is not is not the time when we need if we were to reach that conclusion rejecting the district court's analysis of internet as being not a point to point but nonetheless that point to point means real time transmission with that require remand in your view i think you can try to take different notice as to whether your point requires security device right as opposed sides of the point but i think that within the context of the point to point that i'm really trying to see if if there's a difference between saying that the internet is no advice is something that is completely context dependent whether you're talking about her are you know even you know with in the realm of computer science and electronic communications so what what what microsoft are proposing honor we are getting led astray here with the focus on the idea we respect and not point to point transmissions the specification tells us that the network sixty shown in figure one hand include the internet th nine point zero and column ten we see a header talking about encrypted and we see the importance of real time versus non real time we see the importance of how that affects the key generation whether we can use a permanent key or whether we need to create one key for each session do you drawing the distinction between real time and not real time do you see that as an acceptable distinction between the point to point in one point to point transmission i to because it's actually supported in the columns eleven and twelve and can you prevail in this case with that definition of point to point given mr peterman's argument that the internet does not work in a real time basis you want her to say that it doesn't work in real time basis that's inconsistent with how the patentee had this transmission in mind for example in column twelve there is the discussion of the key that was previously negotiated between the phase and we're not at a situation where we're looking at the facts of whether internet transmissions but that he thought of the real time are truly real time under perhaps a different interpretation so comes eleven twelve we are looking to point to point communication no matter how it's defined either as real time or as being nothing or not p s t n is only described in the context that it would not include the one point to point that simply isn't within part of the