providing access function it's a it's a means of providing access and that means providing access is a three step process first the password has to be issued to the user second the password has to be entered on to the computer and computer the financial accounting computer but it also gets you into the right file it gets you into this master ledger file correct there anything that gets you into the computer and gets you to the right computer and from the right computer to the correct file well in this case the right computers the financial accounting computer yes financial accounting computer has on that computer a file which contains the master ledger how do we get to that master ledger file and anything you've showed us anything in the past well in figure one shows the structure of the financial accounting computer where the accounts  done by the user is all done in steps the access is for but i'm going from this transaction computer to the accounting computer what gets me into the right file just show me how i get the right file well firstly you don't at this point we're only talking about access to the financial account of your not the financial transactions of your nor are we talking about someone using a financial transaction if you are getting to the financial accounting computer we're talking about delighting access to said file of said financial accounting computer i've got to get to said file and i'm trying to find anything that gets me to the file i've got a password to keep me away  so far i'm looking for the structure that gets me to the file you have the user who sits down at the computer yep we don't have all of the steps in that we don't say turn on the computer no need to we don't have is the embassy with an ordinary skill of the art or when you say with respect to p c s you can take something off the shelf you can use a program at the shelf but you don't describe any program with respect to this computer that you're talking about or this claim you know describes we do not describe a software be a compilation of the financial accounting data that the data inputs from the financial transactions let me take it from a different direction and just looking at this figure that's your side of the i see that your issue the pas adjustments to the meadowlands and but the something is missing here and that is getting way past for charmian and then suddenly magically working files but what this doesn't show and absolutely so you have to tell us every step of the process those reports are stored in binary form correct somebody if you have to do so you have to have some software that allows them to be read you do have to have some software or a standardized codes which to which the patent also discusses what this means plus function climate it is a means for access it's not the means for preparing the reports nor is it even the communication aims which is accepted i means for access for a particular purpose its means for actually going file for a list of several particular purpose is absolutely right i mean the it has your your means your structure has to test it actually be able to  support all of the functions and the function isn't just getting into the pilot getting into the files they can do something with those or more functional than they are structured it is not a means it's a means of providing access so that you can do that the user therefore it is the the adjusting adding deleting are part of the function of that not part of the structure out with one with one thing that's not really in this case but i'm still interested what's the point of novelty here what you get this pattern the open communications network the ability to to put into a network of connected fashion the disparate users that would be involved in financial transactions with this first entity such as merchants such as financial institutions and the the courts question is is important in that most of the focus of the prosecution and even the reexamination were on the communication means in the open network the access means quite frankly was not a big focus because password protection of computers or files was not the gist of the invention of the communication means those still has the same problem you got to get me to the right file and there's nothing that shows me an algorithm to get me to the right file is there but for the communication means yes sure well i think for the communications if you look at the the notice transferring data from one computer to the file of they get counting computer correct and the examiner in the read examination identified that structure as composing three parts the first part being a network connecting the financial accounting and financial transaction computers office after the second part being a modem or other data transfer data which if from one computer to the other come pewter now get me to the file third is the common language used by both computers to communicate the processing instructions and using standardized transaction codes to put the information on the file that can be used today and prepare the accounting reports ever look at a column six of the patent line fourteen and it just says referring back to figure one the data input from the city or ledger are transferred to the master ledger but it doesn't say how that transfer occurs yeah it's where i'm the ultimate judgment and and it in response to the arguments made is one that he did there was no proof that it's going to clear a convincing evidence to overcome the statutory presumption of definite of validity and in this case you have the patent examiner on reexamination but if if you as you tell us the inventiveness here is that you've got users spread around countries and maybe even continents getting access to the same master ledger file and being able to manipulate the information in that file i don't think don't we have to have some algorithm that gets us to that file noted that the other computers a financial futures are not manipulating the file on the financial accountability that is only done by the user or the users agent such as the users and you still have not gotten the data imports that are coming from the financial transaction computer even into that file they are downloaded from the network through the modem into that file the modem gets me to the right computer perhaps if it's properly used and the use of standard al i'm in a computer what do i go from there and the use of standardized codes a common language is what gets you from the computer to the file you that's you're just saying people know how to do it don't you have to provide us with structure haven't we said over and over again you only get to claim those broad functions if you give us the structure as well we submit the structures there is shown and it is known by one of skill in the art because you don't state that structure anywhere i don't state in the structure to be that i don't exactly state word for word the one getting passed code must enter it but i think it's understood that if you share some of the past code as we entered especially when there is a step that says it has to be validated when you want to provide access to a file obviously then there is an ability thank you your honor michael sax better on behalf of intuit incorporated i think it's correct that the place that we start with both of these limitations and particularly the access means limitation is with the plain language reciting function which was agreed to by the parties which was adopted by the court and that is providing access to said file providing access to a particular file and then providing access to that file for particular reasons to allow user or an agent to do particular things and one of the things that's very important is that one of the things that the user agent can do is review the file because the the purported algorithm that is case about the adequacy of this vote are you saying there's no disclosure whatsoever i don't agree that there are that there is disclosure that could be termed determined whether or not it's it's adequate the disclosure that is there is for doing something besides the recited function the disclosure is you issue a pass code and as was noted earlier it says nowhere where or how you enter the pass code and then you use that pass code after being provided access to the file to perform certain operations on the data in that file if you look at the specification it says that the access you set for set for sort of in line forty one and bought forty four  accessing the file it may be part of it but it isn't all you need to be able to get into that file through the ways that you access a file but i would give the file can't we do all the other things there with the knowledge and skill in  art you can do all those things but it doesn't say how to get access to the file and one of the things that you have to be able to do according to the claim once you've access the file is review the file and the only thing that approaches an algorithm and i wouldn't agree that it is an algorithm but the only thing that approaches it that after you've gotten into the file then you enter these change orders and you enter these other instructions and one of the things that's done is to check to see if you were authorized to make those  that take it out of that case by a case of or not i don't think it takes us completely out of that body of case law the exxon research case says that the evidence when when the court is considering whether a claim limitation is indefinite or not the evidence is the written document of the patent itself there can be expert testimony and cetera to to illuminate that but the evidence is still all there and you can still tell that even if post access validation we're accessing the file which we submitted is not then you still have the evidence there to show well it doesn't say anywhere where you enter a pass code and beyond stating the algorithm the algorithm has to be clearly linked to the function right exactly cited function exactly and i think what has happened here is that not only is the algorithm not clearly linked to this function it is clearly stated for doing another function which is after you've obtained access to the file then you go in and you can manipulate the data data entered change orders etc but that happens after you've accessed a file and there's just nothing there that says that what you do to access the file is means claiming so strict that we can't use common sense to get from point a to places it is part of the bargain that the patentee that the applicant strikes in using what is sort of on its face broad language to say means for doing a particular function discords that an aristocrat you have to pay a price for that and the price that you have to pay is to clearly disclose what the in the case of a computer implemented invention such as this you have to clearly disclose what the algorithm is for performing the recited function but that doesn't mean i have to put if i an area code of x s and o's up do i of course not this court had a case recently the typhoon touch case where there was a four step prose algorithm that was written out all the steps were there it was all you needed to do to implement the reciting function in this case appellant said the district court found but the district court clearly in the special master's report recommendation on the motions for reconsideration said i want to be really clear what i did not do was find that there was an insufficient  what i did do was find that there was no algorithm that stated several times it's it's a block quoted in our brief and your waiver argument means given that that this was raised in a hearing before the special master was raised in the objections to the history it was briefed through the normal claims coupling construction process that was reported recommendation the rejections to the report and recommendation up through that point if you look at the cited portions of the records that the appellant points to  proposed construction is always the financial accounting computer as defined above programmed to permit access to the file at the point entry of a task by the time you get to the objection issue of the path the clearly addressed no on the objections there is some argument relating to the validation argument i'll concede that but the proposed construction what what the plaintiff at the time was asking the court to construe the terms  it was that said i just cited it was not what has been advanced before this court and what was offered before the district court is is in some ways broader and in some ways narrower than what is offered to this court in this court says if you change felt that he had to resolve the case short of reaching us well actually that's that's not correct the the district court did address the first communication means limitation and report recommendation and threw out and we asked to modify that construction when we we addressed a report recommendation but the district court determined that since the patent office had already sort of listed this list of func of structure that the corresponding structure includes the district court said that really were not well at least that this report did not address our specific arguments which said look all you have here is line one seventy one and all the portion of the specification that describes that was was already read into the record this morning all you have there is something that says you transfer the data but the the court has said you can't cross appeal on this because you aren't appealing from something that that takes away something that's in the judgment what is in the judgment is a determination that the patent is invalid  so we could not cross appeal on that we were not allowed to get ourselves a reply brief on that but we are raising an alternative basis for affirming the judgment that the patents and invalid i could see  maybe a problem if this were were something where you know raising some prior art reference that that hadn't really been fully developed below but this is something that has been fully briefed has been addressed by the special master on the report recommendation as been addressed by the patent is invalid again you have to pay the price for using means plus function lamma language and it's our contention that the plaintiff and appellant simply did not do that the district court determined that as well and was correct we want to make one comment to clarify just to make sure that i did misspeak earlier when i answer the court's question regarding where is the file and i would again refer the court to figure one box twenty where the master ledger is resident on the house computer and wit