command signal but the five thirty five says you g s units are described in the depiction that goes with figure five as downloading video and the downstream one well i think it's a function of the master and it is true the judge patel looked at figure one day and there's nothing wrong with doing that that's one of the words still we do that this is not the agilent case where these it by humans are taught to be incompatible these are highly compatible environments and  experts look at those and just tell look them as well and there's nothing in the law of these other cases that so many sites are cases where there's no description of the use of the elements of a claim in the patent at all there's only one case where to figure one b to see the exact same type of device to see if you d s unit receiving videos and she went further than just saying they received videos she said they received videos from the user and there's videos we had asked in the marketing hearing for that corresponding term to be construed as storing video that could be stored in the future sony said that corresponding term related to the videos said had previously been story there was an agreement to that corresponding term did in fact refer to videos i think claim three the corresponding term has to be construed that way and it is that will be consistent with what judge patel found namely that users can upload video it would be consistent also with the prostitution history where it was argued that the user can make the library by uploading videos the  there are many cases that say that he's right about that that's what you're asking the court to do the written description could be supported by certain features from one embodiment and certain features from the other unless they're ta container that showed bubble mixing and it was a closed container that showed some other process and then the plane said you know when a bubble makes in a closed container he said those are incompatible and that and the other issue i think the claim is construed to be that the mass communication your claims are requires the uploading of video as it should be because i think it doesn't make any sense to rebroadcast demand signals then there's clearly a written uploading of videos and downloading them is shown in a combination of figures and the written description of a species is sufficient to support a written description and i do want to say one more point and i can take in my extended this proposed a few days later september's to the extension was agreed to to be september thirtieth from september sixth we relied upon that date and i don't think that's proper to the say that we delayed we were of the district court construe the master communications unit as as receiving video that is required to receive video in fact judge patel most construction is quite the opposite arts in the mark proceedings our argument was that there was no written description in any event two embodiments of a combination of a master communications unit with a menu storing unit the end with  and we argue to the court that long we're going to go through this construction exercise but as a heads up we intend to seek a ruling in the court that there's no written description of what judge patel did  n deciding the construction of a master communications unit term was to say i think the term is broad i can find it in a number of contexts in the specification and specifically with regard to figure five i can read the is the signal that that those units receive the command signal is not divided into the routing cygnus that's not disputed that part's not disputed and that was the basis on which judge chen found there was no gre description he accepted the finding of judge patel that units five sixteen our master communications unit and that said ok looking at the rest of the place still elements that were not part of the plane construction exercise because there was no dispute over them looking at the rest of the plane if it meant particularly this same signal limitation that's not the spoilers and that that was the basis for has written description argument i and support that decision and that's why  indefinite we didn't get to that but we did have that as a as an issue that we had a serious thought we thought we would move on that something but anyway that's that's that's the  on but you know you heard of the software now of yourself you open it up on your system and basically people can steal bits and pieces of what's on your system are simultaneously giving you bits and pieces and you get all the bits and pieces from lots of different people so it's not like i'm giving you a video like i'm giving similar in function the same signal imitation i mean i'm not quarreling with that that is the that's the absurdity of this written description attacked at the command signal is the one that stored and then the same signal is divided rebroadcast that's what claim construction is wrong that's  magic communication should not just include video which could require video then there's no written description problem obviously a really broad get to a man signal that absurdity is in describing the pattern so this is a bootstrap argument on page fifty three by the way a fatal under the written description requirement it didn't refer to obviousness it said it teaches you can look at various parts of a pattern and you can combine them and it can convince one of orders skill in the art that the invent