robson the first thing i'd like to do is go straight to the district court claim construction order is that a eighteen of the appendix because i want to get out right away what we think is the party system when accessing means said that the notion that i think the district court was trying to capture via the consul to the plane construction if you will saying that it has to be capable of actually going out and grabbing the information from the web is different from what i understand you to be saying when you use the term access can you help me with that you understand the question i do rejecting the claims initially and access to releasing the examiner raised narrative as an initial objection which because she obviously first browser process explicit in the area that can never be exposed to web site data it's closed all web site data downloaded execution is carried out by the unsecured stuff so the secure process is maintain on websites if it sits at home and receives data then a different browser actually goes and plucks off the web and that second first rounder the second rounds are then takes that data and transfers to the first browser amorphous and i'm struggling to see exactly what you're saying the difference is between iran and let's say the queues devices are right well i think that the best place to look is is how we use the term access in claim have direct access to the network interface ok so now the claim is calling out what we mean by direct access what we mean by direct access is direct access to the network and not through the second br would cover all in direct access absolutely cover both but not acquire both right and because you have the pending clients that require direct access to the arm that is exactly o quite simply to say fine web run word processors out videogames out we're going in there a way to disclose in volume of web browser process in the specifications that's and that that feature three steps to get there you've got to back up a little bit and say so so how did that become surrender first let me summarize earlier the relationship between editing the steps it's wrong in the very beginning because nearing does not allow in direct access which is not allowed by the rest of the first prosecutor and will never be permitted so what's the date of their oh it's problem with your argument the second problem is a v p n or statement as i just said the examiner doesn't see anything about near and indirect a bottom and that's why you have to make your claims and then you finally get to the actual a didn't contain indirect access so backing up i mean we're talking about proposition three but there are three steps here to claim destruction there's looking at the planes which i already talked about just look at the indirect is really a red herring care the district court did not find and did not have strategic plans to require direct access and fact that this report specifically said it wasn't going to use that word and there's a reason for that well with th record is is that you don't have to have direct access but you have to be capable of direct access so that was for your purposes that was just as good as requiring direct access let me clarify the distinction i'm making if you look at these claims what claims thirty six or thirty nine are talking about are the first web browser process in the second my browser process being configured to access web site content via the next network that's the independent claim and then the dependent plans talk about being figure to directly exchange data with the network interface device so the concern and if you look at the underlying transcript the back and forth with the court the concern whether if you use the word direct you're really applying no intervening hardware structure this original invention the original two four seven patent was really a hardware invention in morphed over time to these reissue patents which are software based processes but there are still hardware pieces to the within the specification and the concern isn't used directly and you might be thinking you could have a network interface device and between you could have an amplifier multiplex or something else some other component in between so let's not use the word direct let's talk about the functionality itself what does a web browser process how does the process have to function and that's the construction that the court gave so the court gave a construction to web browser process that case meaning to the functionality and that's what's before this court what is the meaning of the addition of the word web to the existing browser process  gave them meaning that is clear from the prosecution history this is an unusual case web browser process does not appear in where in the specific it is a term that was coined as part of the prosecution so that's where we look this is not a disavowal or a disclaimer analysis this is a claim to strengthen the straightforward like we're looking at what is the content of the intrinsic record with respect to  but if you go through all of the back and forth with examiner i mean i think your friend on the other side is will support it in his comments if you take a few words out of context and don't give us the whole history but the whole history the back and forth shows that that there was no concern about direct or indirect access that what what and certainly as of then there was not even an issue that i said a video game or word processor could issue is what was at issue in other words do you access the internet and if you look at what the examiner said in paragraph five throughout his argument that applicant makes reference that the first browser process  web process and then the family goes on it is noted that the features upon which the applicant relied it's that the claimant browsers are actually web browsers and so this is referring to both the first and the second browser not just the f not regarded in the rejected plans and then later on the exam or goes on to express the concern about the video game but why is there a concern about the video because the video games are described within th that the secure application uses a nonstarter software object to perform an action or provide a service that is not directly implemented in application three twelve and this is the paragraph mark of florida describes the example where application three twelve this is inner and may provide some type of web browsing capability to it easer but how does it do that this is what but rather the performing the actual web browsing substance itself application three twelve may call so basically this description of neuron is very similar to what we see in the cube device and this is the basis for understanding what a web browsing process is what is the web browsing process do in the why do you add the web browsing process language  argued when you ask the question what does web do they said well it just eliminate the video and the word processing program that's a dud what was the concept that was for sam fisher because what you just read from is and you know i can go on and point the court to further areas in this argument that do similar provide similar kind of recitation of the difference in their end this is the focus of the argument the focus of the argument is that the browsing program and not the secure rendering application is what is doing the testing the retrieval of the web pages that is the distinction that the market so why does it have to be done directly  type of it's just silent on the plate and that's not the distinction that that that that the applicant made to the office there's no discussion of a pass through anything like that but you refuse to find a clear to claim here socket is the accessing part the content of the code of the processes have to be there for the web browsing if you don't do that you're not you're not browsing the web you're not accessing data on the internet i'm taking you general or your fundamental position is there is no meaning to web browser generally that we're talking about and you're talking about this specific content of this particular insertion in the context of the prosecution history with no specifications or written description to help us i think that would be fair to say or this web browser process there's no just a little bit more straightforward i think i think both sides have agreed then there is no dispute that it is indefinite if it includes critical use or five so the question is whether it should have been c explanation for that that's consistent with your theory in this case i think what that has to moni is that if you if you looked without reference to the specification in other words if you would just say what would you really think of something called  use them right but unfortunately that's a subjective determination and there's no standard given in that case and for how you decide functions of any number of programs and then in this section it refers to different types of programs for processing programs web browser programs operating systems so the point is that in l processes a set of instructions that can carry out various functions when the applicants were required to amend we went through this whole discussion about they started with the term browser process fine it's not every logical process it's a web browser process but it's still a set of instructions for executing functions of a web browser program now i think it's depressing we're asking the question about whether each process needs to do everything i would direct you to claim one through twenty of the five twenty eight patents because if those claims show it to process of working together to render key is just look at the claims the claims a with each process have to do the first process has to be capable of opening the second processor first process has to be capable of accessing the web the first process has to be capable of capable of doing it direct from it when using access in the web in the context that we have here with respect to the second browser web browser process you're really saying just received data from the first web browser i'm no no i'm saying indirect embodiment required is that the web browser process have some of the violence on the other process in terms of receiving the website data the full key is so anything in the entire instrument that receives data that originated from the web is a web browser no no well what was it about that makes the second web browser web site data which includes passing data to the first browser process which inserted by includes gaining direct access to the data itself so in the clean the the browser process whether it's the first or the second has fear east pacific requirement it's not in the abstract here then you have to read a web browser process in the context of the flames as a whole and when you do that you see there are very specific