limitation or element of the plan the district or construed controller as a single control system that regulates the entire bill dispensing process the district court controller there is some discussion for example at the top of column eight in the ninety seven patent controller one eighty four first to some block of structure illustrated if you want to be there isn't any anything very specific that is either illustrated or described and then later on column eighty four the bottom talks about control system eighty making reference to i guess some of the flow charts for the software and  different from controller one eighty so it is controller one eighty at all a part of the patrol system eighty this one a part of the other or they are there two independent systems i believe they can do  point talks about the top of column eight controller one eighty controls the vibration of the  column for line seventeen eighteen talks about the controller one eighty controlling the positioning of the robotic assembly one forty so the controller one eighty i take it is is something that controls a number of different things so the controller one eighty may have various control structures control components with some overriding software or some such thing said that controller one eighty isn't a discrete thing it's a system all right when i think  like i thought that was a description of what control system eighty or at least a partial description of what it does you know does it does the controller include hardware and software the that that's sort of the impression that i got from reading the patent that that the controller is i didn't read anything in the patent specification that limits the controller to any specific structure proponent for for any single component or single piece of structure just seemed to me they were broad descriptions throughout of controllers controlling certain functions  twenty six opinion at age twenty one at nineteen it states both of those definitions and first say there's nothing wrong with that definition but it was clear based on the canyon that it was going to go on and hold that the dispensary had and is vibration and vibration along and cannot be used any other mode for such as gravity to dispense the pill medication barrier that interpretation  in the thirty's or the other and what evidence did you rely on you have the bergeron deposition in the declaration of mark spong is there anything else in terms of the fact that deposition transcript and exhibit is the mark spong declaration and effect so those are the two pieces of evidence that you relied on in an opposing the vibratory dispenser issue that corrected thank you know must be limited to a single controller that regulates the entire system and we just dispose of the claims of the six twenty one six seventy one the don't have a controller limitation no i don't think we can i didn't understand your brief no infringement over something when there is no limiting because the invention is an automated tilts passing system and for it to be automated it have to have a controller otherwise they claim why because the packs say this is an automatic as always system and it talks about the apparatus of the invention and clueless components that are integrated into a singular air when they can finally suffice a subsystem or a portion of an invention if that if that subsystem or portion is considered to represent a patentable invention in concerned because the other side been blindsided at least on the appeal because they're now hearing what your argument is to try to save the claims they don't have control or written into them i get you wonder what did you brief seven one patent talks about it in terms of controlling vibratory dispensers only in the claims correct but if you look at the claims of the ninety seven patent it's clear that the again there's also a reference to a single control of the specifications but presumably the controller if it's controlling various functions and various functions performed by different pieces of machinery within the overall apparatus will have different component parts one component will move the gripper and one will sort this that or the other and or all of these various it doesn't have really the overall system per se it has a computer that uses the input information and directions to the correct microprocessor for the module sort of like an claim one of the nine twenty seven not controller a controller that's doing a different you know different pieces of structure doing different things along the production line but it's not a single controller in the in the accused products it's times regardless of what other controllers are doing whether it's something and that's a computer that regulates the information and where it's based on that and we do have a control system or what the basis is for your for your contention it seems to me that it's just a lot of words that you've got to come after have some overriding control system and i think centrally agreed that there is some overriding control of the various modules and even if the modules themselves have some mechanism and have some microprocessors they are why are they not just components of the overall system they are components of the overall system but as the term controller is in these packs we have six well it's possible there gravity is use however if you're reading the claim to say that the only possible means for moving this stuff has to be vibration i'm saying th