constructions i'm not sure which claim construction you're advocating now because the ones in your grave or you are different from the ones in your flue vary from the ones you advocated for rob thanks your honor you read about i think the simplest thing here would be for the court that the we're talking a local access number it really should be that the district court defined it to mean something close to where the user of the card is i think it really has more to do with the proximity of the reader into which to receive the card to the place for the and you don't really preserve them by presenting them in a great hurry like your opponent your friend has no opportunity of a spot that well we also proposed in our opening brief but i modified it a great read to make it to try to make it a little because i i really came primarily to talk about the two issues that the judge addressed in his in his ruling one has to do with the control system and if we think that the the defendants don't make cards or configure readers or insert smart cards into readers or engage in functions described in consumer transactions all true but irrelevant because our claim has nothing to do with those steps are plain one is a him through the documents produced by the defendants and he says in twenty some forty eight twenty some forty nine of our appendix with his paragraphs and he says it can be that there is such a thing because he s processor this routing requires a list of routing addresses which must be stored in a database within the system in order for the reader to know where to route the response to how that is inference from the fact that there is such routing taking place and calls on their documents of the cite any evidence of mine are saying that i don't understand why what you're describing as it's reading thing is the date of the so the list of access numbers for network service providers and geographic information for each access number in the database it's that last part of the court construction that i don't see how that provides what you really need her every routing at but my understanding is that the needs to be set and master card systems could care less where the card is being used and not why pocketable trying to processing a transaction at a location close to where the transaction takes place if the system isn't directing the transactions to the nearest geographical processing location only makes sense the system is presented with millions and millions of transactions a year in any day any time during you can think that the system will go on till if the if the if a transaction were not routed to the nearest place for processing because even if the processing only takes a matter of seconds it still ties up the system for that period of time ended is there any evidence that shows that master card uses a local access number it isn't access number and the fall access number can be exactly the same number of kids they ask the other side ask them to find them to be mutually exclusive just sitting under local access number as a number that indicates a designated or selected network service provider get that car but the reader which sends the information for processing says where the read where the user is so in order for you to land the readers have to use a number that's specific to their locale they can't be sending things off but that's not the court district court construction and seems to me that you haven't made any significant challenges since this report's construction i don't know what system and it doesn't matter whether the district court's construction of local estimate is right or wrong if you agree with the district court local access numbers that are specific to the user's location and the systems of these and master cards which processed transactions in a way that is independent of the location where the transaction originates simply do not do before in the record is witness statements submitted by visa and master card that clearly indicate that the geography the location where the transaction to originates with is not material to the processing of the  page document that was referred it's in there to the appendix at page twenty seven thirty eight and i'm going to read for it read read from it for the court what it indicates is that transactions require fast reliable process ing such as those submitted using this is the important part a contactless card or device at a toll booth this case is not about contactless cards this case is about cards that have to be inserted into a reader so called technology this is the second time that we've been for the sport if first case was the first case of about qantas card it was resolved those cards are not at issue in this case this document only relates to contact those cards the statement that they're relying on with respect himself says that he is he can find no documents that actually disclose a database that has to graphic information or local access number and to fill that hole what do they do well what happens is mr gustin speculate and provide a complete guess for that stand in process that must somehow use geographic information my friend indicated that that's based upon the documents but there's no documents cited in that paragraph or where it there's speculation about how spin and processing works in fact the only evidence is the evidence again provided by the witness statements provided by these and mastercard these and these statements are based upon personal knowledge about the people who actually work with these systems know how they operate and use them on a daily basis the complaint that they're not based on documents is quite frankly a red herring first there's no documents out there doesn't tell what the system doesn't do or what the system doesn't have what that transaction can still be processed and the matter can go through it has nothing to do with where the transaction originated from doesn't matter if the transaction started here in d c in new york california or anywhere in between it's simply a matter of filling in when that is sure is not available the next issue that i want to address of course is this issue of control which is the third ground upon which the district court granted summary judgment to master card and visa and we don't reach data for you know reasons for the court to reach it if in fact it determine all with respect to control we think it's very it is actually an independent basis and all the evidence indicates that neither visa nor master card doesn't put into place the entire system that is have no insight into and no control over how the merchant connects to the acquiring bank they don't they don't they don't govern them they don't dictate that they have no insight into it the connection between the merger in the purview of the visa or master card there's no direct relationship between visa master card and the merchants who are doing that connection to the acquiring now what smart metric has focused on our specifications and they suggested again based upon mr gosselin's sort of speculation that these specifications must give some type of control because there  master card which indicate that the specifications talk about intel how a card talks to the reader coalminer operability specifications and that's so that if i take my card down the road here in d c and i put it into a reader that's going to work the same way as if i go to california and i put my card in a reader because again it doesn't it doesn't matter where i put my cards that reader or use it because geography is not material so the processing of the transaction so what these specifications talk about is how do you put the cup how is it that the reader and the card must physically connect to each other how is it that the data can be exchanged how is it that the card gets powered by the reader what happens after that what the merchant does with the other merchant talks the are not part of the specifications not controlled not at all an issue in terms of how these mastercard operate their system and because of that and buy something that's the basis upon which the district court founded the in fact the facts of our facts are are much better than the facts and sentencing and scintilla and there was an actually a customer relationship between the queues and printer and those actors who perform the other steps or provide the other components of the queue system here there is no direct relationship between visa master card or the margins in addition in this until the in case the excuse infringer question provided actual software client locations and that perform the functionality that was required in order to satisfy the claim and station here we're not providing any such software we provide that's the case and unrelated to the subject matter of the pat provider and then gave plain meaning to the term local that is pertaining to a particular location this is we believe is completely consistent with how the invention is described throughout the specification the specification traveling by providing a local access number and the ability to have that local access number used at that at that users location when their travel for these reasons this is the right construction and no other construction that smartmatic has offered in that there are billions of dollars in savings on the fraud and they have no declaration or evidence for the country and the judge the district judge made no finding to them that there was no benefit so that issue seems to me least we win them in the hands down unmeasured are dictates how the parts work for the readers of the readers were the programs other programs work with the networks and they control all of that and dictate all of that in fact merchants said you can't put the name on the visa dictates and master card dictates how the system is to operate otherwise you can't be a member of their system you can't be a and rolled merchant for the bank or anything else that that's absolute control just a quick i want to come back to the lock boxes number there are at least three things that i think i ask for to keep in mind one is that the claim says using one of the local or default access n providing using one so the system doesn't have to provide a local access number at all the second point is the trunk the district court in making claim interpretation said that the local access number in the vault number can be one of the same oh at least part of the time there's infringement of the default access number isn't used which is all the claim calls for used not provisions my opponents didn't even argue in the truck or that the system must provide both that's a good argument they made on