rules were plain construction in particular he found that the term data information message does not include a control message he found that he also inserted language into step two of method claim three that required the mets finish step one you can begin step to the duke that was a finding of a district court because this is done on a computer these methods steps can be done where you begin one before you in that step you can begin the second another step and so even though that would be sequential you can begin one and in fact you have to begin one in order to begin to because to to determine the contingent of step two which is configured for only data information messages the only thing you're asking is can i receive an unmodified message am i could figure for that and that is the contingent of step two step one apologize so whenever you determine that particular part of the continues of step one you are in fact also determining the continued of step two and if you continue to step two is tru it direction to to process the packet according to step three to eight but if the continued of step one is true then they continue to step two is false and then step one also to directs you if  seems to be inconsistent they are mutually exclusive because let me let me just take a step back and see and determine what steps one and two are actually trying to accomplish there trying to filter out unmodified messages and they do it in two ways if you can figure to receive unmodified messages then you want to look at the packet to see if there's a header the absence of a header indicates that this is an unmodified message and you want to send it to  to the user's application without processing it's an unmodified it's a regular text or paging message that has not been modified according to the teaching the patent and step to figure one sort of indicates that you exclude that it's not part of the invention we don't want to process it or are decoded because it's not part of the invention so in that scenario you would simply pass it to the user's application without processing it and in fact when you have that scenario both the contingent of step one is false and the continued of step two is false so the only only alternative you have there is to send it to the user's application now there are two other possible outcomes with respect to claim to want steps one two we just talked about one of them the second outcome is where you do not have a configuration where you can receive unmodified messages you receiver is not configured to receive unmodified messages in that case the continue to step one is false but when you make that determination the continued of step two is false is true and so now continue the step two kicks and tells you to it's a different way of saying it well i don't know that it's actually because you have these three outcomes and once you get the puzzle actually does fit together but let me just correct one thing with respect to step one it's not simply saying go to step two it's saying i now have a modified message and so i'm going to process that it directs the processing as we modify package according to step two date sort of compositions to thing it basically defines if you will starts to date to be the steps for processing a modified packet and in that configuration a configuration of step to you or configured to only receive modified messages now albeit when you have when your problem is that still once it is the receivers configured to receive modified messages in step two says it's not that's right those are two alternatives to be completely inconsistent it's not whenever you want when with respect to to two step that's what the district court did basically he inserted a stop language in step two when it's false you stop and i would ask the court to refer to column thirteen this is a insist well let me make this to this statement that it's determining the configuration it's not saying it's configured both ways at the same time it's determining as to whether or not it is configured for unmodified messages and if it's not two is directly related and linked to the content of step one when you determine one you determining the other and you start off with step one because the first thing you're looking for is is the receiver configure the receivers looking m i configured for unmodified steps for processing the packet as unmodified packet or steps to date now you've been you've already indicated that step two at that point is false but there's nothing in the language of the claim this is to stop and so if you just simply move to the next process which is how the patent actually teaches in the processing steps and i would refer to column thirteen steps ten or eleven twelve you have to contingent steps that wind when they are false you actually begin to process the packet because the patent teaches that logical technique in its use normally in programming where you have a conditional the conditions not met you simply continue the processing unless you have something that tells you to stop and that's what the district court did was he inserted language there that says stop or you have the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent because nothing in step two tells you to stop one is false and so you which you have in the end you have a directive from step one telling you to one is telling you to proceed to model to process the packet as a modified packet according to steps to date now that does not tell you go to step one and stop at step one if step two is false i apologize but it's telling you to process it according to steps two to eight now at that point step two is false because you don't you have a different configuration but that does not prevent you from from moving to down to step three to eight and in fact you know you now have a modified packet would construe these claims especially with respect to steps two and eighty also found a possibility there and we ask that these but we also specifically addressed the conclusion if you just look at that one point one possibility where you you are configured for unmodified messages and the packet has a header and it tells the process according steps to date if you get to step two it's falls nothing there tells you to stop and to read to include language they're are written a little differently it's another example but it follows that logical technique of simply if you have a contingent without an alternative and it's false it just continues down to the next that continues falls it continues down to the next one and it says by the time you get to step twelve it column thirteen it says if i'm here but it must be just simply a data information message that i need to modify and so it's a logical technique that is used in the patent that shows that when the contingent is false then you continue down to the next step because there's nothing in that patent claim that tells you to stop and so when you read steps one and two together to accomplish that goal and you know that step two and step one you can have one step  your honor i would i would object to saying that we cannot perform a continuous step on unless it's true i do not believe that that's and that performance and i would also refer to the cyber settle case where it said if if you don't meet the contingent you don't have to be capable and now it's a little different but it's an infringement issue but it's saying if you don't meet the imprint the be contingent you don't have to be capable of performing the consequences of that contingent and in this case what we're saying is if you don't meet the the  contingent of the step there's nothing in the step that tells you to stop processing it and so if you stop there you're first of all you're contradicting the teaching of the patent because the patent teaches that you can continue processing when the contingent is not met and that's a problem thirteen step ten eleven twelve where you have contingent steps which have not been met but it continues down the next step and that's what we're urging the court here do not add language into step two that says stop is not in there and  continue to three there's nothing in the language and i guess well if it if you would agree with me that a contingent step can be either true or false and if it's false then you do not perform the exclusive fifty exclusivity between the continue to step one in the continuum of step two you read them together and there's nothing in step two that tells you to stop and if we if we have a rule now that if you have a contingent step in it sudden obviously wishes that the applicant had written this claim differently and the specification differently but as this court has repeatedly held it's the claims in the specification that provide a vitally important notice function of informing the public of what's been patented and as a result they don't have to stand on a patent that they wrote and that they got from the p t o and not try to present another one today as written claim three is clearly an operable for reasons that the courts questionings are as already got over the that if certain conditions are satisfied then process the message according to steps two through eight step two however can never be performed because the conditions for processing the message are incompatible with the conditions that were set forward in step one which means two things first other step one requires processing according to step two there can never be processing according to step two because the conditions as written are fairly incompatible and the second additional thing that means is that you can also can never reach steps three through eight under the plain language of all of this now there are a few points that came up that i should address but first just doing of asking about how do we read this line in the specification the specification is quite informative in a few respects because the first thing one thing that's understandably clear from the specifications preamble everything else is that the whole point of this invention is to send modified messages messages that have started off as if it messages over a traditional unmodified paging system so for this invention to even get going the receiver has to be configured to receive unmodified messages as that means its traditional paging system is what we're supposed to be using but it also has to be modified to receive modified messages because that's what we're supposed to be a process which confirms that steps one of those who have to be cumulative requirements because of step one that talks about being a figurative unmodified messages and step two the talks about it being yours to figure perceive modified messages or a particular type of modified message called the data information message so if you go to the specification basic purpose you know for certain that claims one and two were specifically written the way they are to be cumulative because otherwise you're not even practicing what the specifications stripes of the invention is being in addition though it's true that sometimes a step may be a contingent stop where it's as if and maybe you perform it maybe you don't in some instances but here there are two a couple crucial points one is the point that the judge white's question went to which is that under their reading as the district court pointed out step two would simply be surplusage because under their reading from claim one we know it's a modified message because a modified message has a pre determined headers a step one tells us that we're going to steps two through eight if we have been modified a message but they then read step t to just say in all instances no matter what go to step three their view of step two is that it says if certain conditions are satisfied go to step three if those conditions are not satisfied go to step three anyhow and it's not proper under this court's decisions and him in attics and other surplusage there are that which is impermissible the argument seems to be that well it doesn't express we say what to do if the condition is not satisfied and therefore you can just ignore it but if i were to tell but the necessary implication here is obvious because if i were if my red light would come on and it told the court if you'd like to hear more from me i'll be happy to keep talking i think you don't understand that the third leg implication is that i'm not confused talking about what you say and it's the same here as this if certain tests are satisfied then go to step three through eight then conditions being satisfied is the only way to get to step three through eight which is why as written it just doesn't work the way that they're describing it now and then beyond that if you look at specification for further consultation what you get is that the confirm that it data information message is not an unmodified message and that's all that we need to know to read the plain language of the claims as written to confirm that it's an invalid claim and the court's done that in lots of cases that are cited in our brief in chef america for example the clear point of the invention was too big though but as written that the claims would entail not baking dough but incinerating it to the point that it turned into a charcoal like substance and this court held that the patent applicants the one that gets to draft this patent is therefo bound with the claims that it writes and therefore even if that would be nonsensical even if it would defeat the purpose of the invention that's the nature that's that's the that's the patent is burden as the best the one that actually wrote the claim and we're numerous similar decisions of the court that we cite in our brief control message and a modified message that are of relevance here now one of the arguments when you might be picking up on from their brief is that they say well the district court never expressed lee construed this phrase configure perceive only a particular type of message now the reason that wasn't presented in work with us it has a plain ordinary meeting configured receive only one type of message means configured to receive only that type of message and then in a circle i prefer a summary judgment they raise this that way should it construed that term and the two points there are the first  is just too late to be requesting a new construction of a division that's plain ordinary in any event but the additional thing is that the court did because what judge davis said all that was implicit is he said considering all of the well everything that they put forward none of it works receiver is configured to receive only data information messages step eight however calls for processing only control messages and that's a logical impossibility because control messages are not a type of data information message we know that in a couple respects although again the court has a need to reach this because one ground for an opera billet is sufficient but if the court is interested in this issue we know that control messages are not data information that's just in a few ways first the preamble to claim three expressly refers to processing data information messages and control messages so it calls them out as being separate things something then responds well maybe a control message is a type of data information message which is saved maybe did information message refers to modified messages generally including contriteness does but there are four reasons that that can't be the case the first is that the specific claim three itself or separately to date information messages control messages and modified to access so the specifications of the claim itself is referring to modified and data information as being different things second we know that data information messages are assigned a specific subchannels but control messages are not which means control messages can't be data information messages at market in the district  to be a message that among other things does not have a subchannel they have not disputed that appeal presumably because the specification specifically says a couple places quote in their brief that subchannels are signed to data months just not to control messages points are just that a dated assets which is what we think a date information messages and a date information us just are perfectly logical synonyms for one another a data information messages is not at all a logical way of referring to a modified message generally and in fact when you read the six claims in the patent all of channel is a service type or information out and whatever that may mean is certainly not a plain ordinary meaning so because the term subchannel does not have a plain ordinary meaning then this court necessarily looks to the specification to try to attempt to determine its meaning and  three in column fourteen starting around one thirteen it says the invention supports and they then drops the next line targeted addressability of two hundred fifty six subchannels for receiver dedication maximum difference in this context i don't think so because the specification is saying that this is what the supports it's not just a random saving that supports two hundred fifty six what it's saying is this is what it supports the point being that that is what's being disclosed targeting of up to two hundred fifty six addresses there are other statements and so in other words what it was saying is what it supports it's not saying it supports anything else or suggesting it supports anything else the other point is that are scattered throughout the specifications starting with the tables on the opening pages of the patent through the summary of the invention section which is one of the place so just referring to through some confirming references in the script detail description of the  thirty three to start with the number seven and eight what that refers to is one of two hundred fifty six times for subchannel availability and they correctly say that that refers to having four times two hundred fifty six subchannels what sutton testified to in his deposition which described as what this saying is that if you have more than one subject if you have more than one receiver dedication druss you can have more than one set of two hundred fifty six subchannels so if you want four times that number of subchannels you forward for jennifer cation dresses but what that means is that the only thing that  whatsoever also the way that the patent teach is getting to two hundred fifty six which by the way is extremely logical number when you're talking about it but it's the only way the pattern teaches about getting to the number of subchannels as it says we use one seven bit byte which is one hundred twenty eight combinations for the subchannel because they're framing byte that goes at the beginning of the packet and there are seven bits the framing byte and a specification allocates a different function to each of the seven bits and it says to use one of those bits exactly one itself which one what doubles you from one hundred twenty eight two hundred fifty six optionals so everything that the patent teaches is entirely consistent one hundred percent consistent with the on point statement that the invention supports exactly two hundred fifty six subchannels the repeated it at that point the way to determine the way the system is set up is if you are configured to receive unmodified messages the way to distinguish between unmodified unmodified is to look to the header but if your receiver is configure that it can always receive modified messages and only modified messages in step two and you don't need to look to the header you simply process the packet and to get to the statement again about step two if every step in a method claim has to be performed for infringement but we have a finding that a contingent step that is false is not performed then i think that that's that's going to be a problem especially a claim construction because there are claims that are written with contingen that's the disagreement because you can't perform step two by finding it falls on a continuing three day end and i would ask the court to to look at that technique a column thirteen and if where specifically it's it's doing what steps one and two are doing  it's doing using that technique if if the contingent is false you continue down to the next step that's column thirteen steps ten eleven twelve accomplishing the same thing with that logical technique and that's clearly what the patent teaches the person or school in the order would understand that article technique so that the coin works perfectly and that's why you have only in there so that you have that mutual exclusivities between the steps one and two and when you perform step one you are performing step two and if step two is true and that this is his language the specification discusses two hundred fifty six of channels and there's nothing in the specification that would broaden that range therefore i'm going to limit it to two hundred fifty six and what we haven't heard from nokia is clear language from the specification that is claim one is a method for preparing a packet and nokia agrees that the the construction for packet is not limited to district packet structure that's indicated in figure four in fact they agree to the claim the construction packet is  a data structure containing data for digital transmission and so they've never said that you have to use the exact header that's in figure four you have to use everything in the exact position in fact the only thing they've said is you have to take sub channel which  of the data portion of the packet and now you're limited to that but the subchannel number is just a product of the amount of space that you've a lot of in the packet and so to increase the number of channels you simply add one bit you can add multiple if it's greater than one hundred twenty seven you add an extra bit and use one bit that's in the brain by by implication it's teaching if you want to increase the number of subchannels you can add extra bits and the position that's that's in the specification in the packet it's at the beginning of the data portion there's nothing there would prevent someone from simply allocating extra bits and so if you want more information you want to sixteen bit number which would allow for sixty five thousand subchannels you just simply say in the beginning of the in court says we're not going to read that into the spec into their claim because it's not in the claim also in the gillette case where you had a razor blade which had in the claim it had blades first second and third blades and the district court in the other side said everywhere in the specification you talked about three blades you mention three thirty times or tertiary thirty times and this court says that wasn't enough there was not a clear statement of the disavowal or restriction of claim scope and we're not going to read that limitation into the claim and that's what we're asking this court to do with respect to such a