specification needs to disclose the algorithm for which provides the structure for that function in this case there is a very simple two step algorithm that's disclosed in the specif structure the preferred embodiment described extensively in the specification is in is the invention in connection with a unix operating system in which the super application interface data well so so the the basic conclusion that the court really reached was that all of the description in the specification described the result of an urn outcome and was not describing how to mount the the two file systems so that they can both be accessible and and if you go through he missed the critical language in the patent that says the way the mt protocol operates is to set up data structures and set up this particular data structure forty three to forty five every operation set up the data structure right sets up the data structure and that they had a structure is the one i was describing there is no dispute in this case that that's a well specified data structure that the defendant i b m asked the court to rule that that term itself was indefinite in the court refused to do that gave it a construction explain that the specification fully  what that data structure consists of out operates it's essentially a structure that inherits the data structures of the two underlying file systems and what's the second so as you said that was step the second step is populating that data structure that's where you in here and here at the data structures of the it to underline file system so so both of those are in that contain the v f s data structures of these two file system structures that's where there's a metal layer super layer and it incorporates around here it's the contents of the  that in this case is in the preferred inviting the called the end no structure and again there is code provided in the specification about what the m node structure looks like and that it follows a very simple algorithm again to step first any file operation that say your word application is asking for provides multiple descriptions of these algorithms that are central to the invention so at column thirteen peroration of the you know that the virtual directory of the mirror file system that's the m no data structure when the v no doubt operation for example open operation for an open request get s first get the am node from the pipe private data field and then that i am no doubt finds the operation on both of the v nodes the mere file system it's intercepted by the data structure of the of the invention which then tells the system specification says the same procedure is filed for all the other operations so there are there's there's two possibilities here and in a write or update context you have to send it to both of the underlying file systems for read you only have to grab the file from one of them but that's all explained in the specification and i saying that it perform the identical operations and the same parameters on both pop copies it's again reiterating that all the managing function does is except the file operation from an application and including right and it's a matter of just almost identical wording but using the word white right instead open now there are some different arguments you have to use the operation and needs different information but those are all specified in the file systems interface structure those are things that that  purposes the whole computer science world needs to be able to understand and implement the judge had it absolutely wrong when he said that this specification doesn't lay out the arguments that issue that came up in the market in here and related to a lot and there was no evidence in the record about how whether the lock function operated like the open or read or write operations and in the specification explained how you handle that that's a that's a so fourteen lines twenty to thirty five explain and and i'm usual lot that could be used in connection with the invention and how the most of what it's explaining is how that lock and being sent to both of the file systems intercepted at the at the from the application and and distributed to both of that application but there's a little twist because you have to deal deal with timing in that you need both of the locks on both file systems at the same time and and it's explained how you do that in that in that  good morning your arse hole for i b m may please the court we're here today because twin peaks is not paid the price think knowledge price for means plus function came claiming with respect to these two limitations the district court correctly determin after a thorough analysis of the issues and should be affirmed i'll start with means for mounting and in particular i want to start with start with one of the comments that mr wagner made which was there was and there is no dispute about the sufficien the disclosure of the data structure in particular the m f s v f s and that's a column eleven line five down to about line fourteen now with if you look at this data structure you can actually see there are some lines written out here but at the bottom it says other fields and it has a lip cs and we have testimony in the record from twenty six experts saying that that's omitted code in fact there is significant amount of code left out of this data structure so there is a dispute whether that's a sufficient disclosure but more importantly this data structure is a result of the function it's not an algorithm for how to perform the function exactly as the district court represented by a directory is mounted these two file systems are linked together and become a mirroring pair essentially what that saying is you create the virtual file system by by doing the mounting so the result of the obviously code is not required so it could have been described in prose however there is no description of the new approach for mounting so what the panty could have done is explained here's how you melds according to this claim the this is how you do the m f s mounting protocol and importantly it's a new approach to mounting it's a it's not the conventional approach so they could have explained you mallets by either with code for example saying this is the code because all that saying is mallets that's describing the result that's essentially saying it's like in black ord where there was an axis control manager so that the function at issue was means for accessing and the pantie pointed to this thing called the access control manager as the structure but disclosure said the access control manager creates the access control lists that was the only disclosure so there was a black box structure and then a result and that was a disclosure and it was found the insufficient in our submission to you you're ours is that that's what's happening here essentially it's saying the amount you set up data structures and all that's telling you is when you mount here's what results and actually in twin peaks reply brief they said here this is at page five here where the algorithm consists of the creation of a series of data structures describing the resulting structures the answer because you can't tell from the specifications can you just call one level deeper and tell me what you think the mounting entails yeah i think maybe i can explain it this way there's a conventional unix mounting when you conventionally do a unix mount saying and you do a second mount you lose access to the first mounted file system so you go from one to two but you lose the first one the m f s mounting this is actually one of the alleged points of novelty here in fact it's called the crux of the invention but the  have the first bounce of file system in a second and when you create the second you don't lose the first so what you would do is somehow need to modify the standard unix mounting so you don't lose the first but we don't know how to do that because it's not disclosed level to the bottom level but it's not that simple you know we've always been on the end of the impression that there is no dispute that for the structure here you would need to have disclosure of the m f s operations these specific operations created for the m f s which as he admits are modified from the standard versions in the unix which we don't dispute or know so you have this collection of m f s operations which need to be not only moved from the top of  bottom of all but modified to do that and then also modified to do other things like lock and back off and what the issue is is here is one most of those operations are disclosed second we don't know how many of them are required for managing and third the description that it gives of these particular functions it does tell you how to do one of them open so as you take open from the unix code you modify it in this way and it will vignette operations for the m f s these are the operations that are involved in managing all of them and it actually doesn't say all of them it says except for us it leaves some out follow the same procedure as described in m f s open to perform the same identical operations with the same parameters on both copies of the mirroring pair but the very next section shows that that's not what you do you have to modify some of them to go to two copies some of them go to one copy and then as you go further down the specification fourteen now i would tell you well you have to go even further than that you have to modify the right the special l f s mirror file system right operation so that you have this complex locking mechanism which itself includes a back up back off  so it's not as simple as simply saying he goes to one copy or two you have to modify these various operations to do different things and we just don't know how you modify the rest of them because they're not disclosed so you have this massive omission of structure and you therefore have a partial but an adequate algorithm for this function the standard one thing you said that caught my attention and i wasn't sure i greeted with as you said it doesn't say all others it just says read wri that's the problem that we have your own as we don't even know which of these m f s operations are involved in managing and which are not because there's no disclosure and we'd submit that because this is means plus function claiming you need to disclose those various operations tell us which ones they are and either in prose or code tell us how to how they would operate how to perform them and we just simply don't have that and what we have instead is instructions that actually don't they don't help you because as we saw the twin p expert provided a supplemental declaration purported to provide code for write cording to the patent and left out this crucial component the locking mechanism he left it out completely so that's and that's just one example for all the other  operations and again we don't know what they are because we're not disclose who knows what modifications would need to be made and if you follow the instructions of the patent like fix expert did you end up at the wrong place and so in a sense what you have  either incomplete template for how did how to program the rest of these operations or you have in an operative algorithm all together like you had in the media rights case it's just simply didn't work the code you put together following the patent didn't do what the patent says so it's alternately it's not as simple as the function that he's now saying is you know simply routing you're directing we've always understood that managing from our view is more than just routing from the top to bottom it's actually ensuring the data coherency in consistency as in column fourteen line twenty nineteen down to thirty six with the locking mechanism when i asked their expert as deposition what the corresponding structure what she actually identified column fourteen line thirty seven and down which is this fail over and recovery portion that's not merely directing or routing that's you know ensuring that there's a fail over in recovery saying yeah it's not i think it's a matter of security or i think what he's saying is one there's a disclosure of it into you would need it because it just be the basic approach anyway but although i don't think that's in the brief but as we heard today saying this is sort of a unique procedure and you know query why this was left out of the experts declaration was it because he just overlooked it or because you don't have enough details here to put it in the code we just don't know so let me just point out one thing i think i got ahead of myself just like with the means for mounting this m node structure and management of these two file systems it's another point of novelty so you can't just fill in the gaps with we can't fill in gaps anyway but you can even flush it out with the testimony of one of our east on the art because this is something that's brand new so you have to provide disclosure of it so unless or any other questions is it's quite apparent they didn't raise their expert raised an issue that said oh open is a fundamental command so is right and clo so mr bernstein reading that declaration wrote code for right read close the issue of locking didn't come up until the marker in here we were before the judge specification that don't require the logic i've pointed out in the brief there's there are circumstances where the remote file system is only being used by one person  that i'm writing my word document it saving to both my hard drive a number of location but there is nobody else who has any access to my system so i don't have to worry about the two file systems getting  by i don't i don't i think in my brief i explain why that's the case and one skilled in the art would certainly read the patent that way it doesn't express the lock doesn't isn't needed in that circumstance but it also is clear from the specification that the lock is is separate and it's a different idea and it got incorporated into claim six because it was a different idea didn't need to be in all systems but more important the specification is where he's getting his information about the lock there is disclosure the procedure by which you handle the lock is provided in the specification and so the managing function is fully specified for one and one who is interested in in implement same that's all there is come out to when you mount a file system on a computer system and the operating system when you direct the amount on a particular directory the system does does the setting up of the the data structures that's all it is it's getting ready for these operations that might or might occur so the answer is clearly if you read the specification and understand it that's how you mount is by setting up data structures in the invention here is a particular set of data structures which link in  to file system systems thus of overcoming the problem in conventional file systems the second or third point is counsel was describing how for the mechanism managing there is more than just this directing function that it gets modified no it doesn't get modified those operations are set forth in unix and unix is a preferred embodiment here there are operations if if we had specified in the specification thirty or forty forty operations they'd probably be saying well you didn't specify for the windows system there's a limit