something else there are different ways that it's been implemented your honor the content should be exactly the same so you should get what you would have gotten in walmart dot com in spanish whether you do that by going to a page that is now first proceeding you say it means that i agree i think if there's a meeting of the minds and the patent owner really said x and the examiner understood and actually came back with the same x then you should hold the patent owner to that construction that is not what happened here may be very very clear that is not what happened in this case but i think that would be a fair outcome whether that's that there's a law or regulation to compel that i'm not certain but i think that would be a fair way to proceed if i thought if you may if i may i'd like to walk you through why that's not at all what happened here if you go to the file history and that's really all that said the issue from the patent office i think there's no dispute that there's claim language that the specification they they argue these two are thought somehow completely at odds with each other file history is what they focus on and there's page after page after page about the file history but there is no argument and i think there is a concession that there is no  should get is the same list of stores but the same text about the list of stores in spanish that you would have had in english that's where lacquered says different what blackbirds teaches is you may have country specific or language specific column five lines twenty seven through thirty three talks about allowing a site to be built with quote content that is specific to a particular language and country and later talks about regional specific information that may only be if the text you're pointing out if you read it in isolation and you only had that text we have a bigger problem than i think we should have you have to read it in context of the overall discussion of blackbeard's and of the file history so can you parallel document trees in corresponding language pacific directories on a web server so now you have pre selected pre translated content going into servers carry that forward to fourteen forty nine where your honor was looking but look at paragraph abo and if you start at the very top of the page on fourteen forty nine it talks about why the lacquered approach is quote fundamentally at odds with the ability in the zero two two patent to provide a translation of said further electronic communication simply by following an arbitrary hyperlink that's an important phrase in lacker it's you follow the hyperlink to the content so you have a best buy dot com it's got a link to the stores page you can now it's translated into industry follow that link here you have pre built creature insulated content into servers themselves it says right afterward just read that one of skill in the art reading lack brits would conclude th user can obtain translations of further electronic communications only for peaches that have been treated pre trained slated with translation stored in specific directories on the server so the structure is different now you get into the language your honour's refer which again if you just read an isolation i come i'm not suggesting there that the pan off is making it up that there's not some reason to make the argument but that language in context goes down to the bottom look at the paragraph after that says as a result you know after these two paragraphs which i think are fairly complicated and difficult to follow it sums it up it says as a result of using relative your else instead of absolute you are alice in black roots and a system of parallel directories one for each target language so that slacker its hyperlinks in different translations from the same source document will link to different documents different translations of him this is the keyword another source document what they're telling you there is that this content is different it's going stead of to it translated version of the same source document is going to a different another he's right on point in doing a different address that's not what that means  communication when said hyperlink is activated as reciting claim one yes yes your honor so i think this is exactly the point i'm making which is to inflame one what you get is the same content translated it says so if you look through the claim i think it's a seven limitation you click on the hyperlink for the further communications and they come back translated and so what this is telling you when you put it in the context of the set aside read if you're not getting that content translated you're getting  could be getting different content translated so you're not going to click the hyperlink and get the same content all the translated that's what that's  well that's what that's what the patent office called but i don't think that's fair it's the it's the very beginning of the brief it's the introduction to the arguments that some introduction to what trance perfects view is of the evil to true fact and it says it one implementation of that claim and it says at the last four lines of the paragraph above that one of skill new york reading mirada would conclude that a this is a body meant translation of a further electronic communication is not provided or delivered to the user when i link on a document translated from the source document is activated so now we have a translated link on the source document that's not coming back from iraq at this is describing how claim one works it's distinguishing it but it's making it clear that in claim one you have a link on a document that is translated from the source document when it's activated as opposed to me rather where that doesn't happen ok you're ou last year and so we point that out in our brief as contacts the board pointed out that there were these contrary arguments that were being made in a parallel proceeding and what we pointed out in our brief is that the examiner did in fact rely on th arguments and came to the conclusion that the claims were valid patentable over the prior art asserted in that proceeding and the key to all of this with the inner parties reexamined i think is that there is a direct conflict between not only what was told to the board emma was told to the examiner in that proceeding but also what trance perfect has said in these proceedings and page fourteen of the reply brief quote trance perfect never argue that the zero two two patent claims lengths had to have the same targets in the country and slated and translated pages but if we look at page eight one four four nine which we're looking at just a few minutes ago they used that specific language about same targets when discussing claim one and that language was referenced by the board on page eight seventeen it was quoted by the board and when the examiner determined made a final determination in the inner part exam on page eight two zero five four he against pacifically quoted that language from transfer effect and on a two zero five five concluded that because france perfect had consistently made that argument that claim construction argument he would adopt that claim construction even though he noted on two of five four that that was exactly the opposite position that trance perfect was advancing in this proceeding not only that but there was another see beyond proceeding in which trials not tooted and the reason it was not instituted according to the board was because of the same construction which was adopted by the board in this case and also in the inner parts reaction and it would be fundamentally unfair we said that to allow the does that hyperlink necessarily mean it's nicely exactly the same hyperlink apple's already decided in the plane because the korean language already indicates that there is going to be a translation of  page has been translated from saying the word stores to the word form that's so what's your response to that so a couple of things your honor out one we can see that the label would change and would make sense to translate the label it simply translated well if the u r l part of the hyperlink remains identical then you're going to be directed to the same original page which in that case would be an un translated page not a translated page and the label there's this article in the briefs about if you're changing the label are you changing the hyperlink so that was sort of what i was asked and you're your brother in arms and that is like click on that walmart link there's a pop up as a walmart link but in spanish and you're saying now well certainly not and the in that scenario to get a translated version and in the two to patent the only method of doing that that is described is by replacing the u r l torsion of the hyper like to point to the translation manager somehow you have to get to the translation manager because that's the only disclosed functionality for translate to minors and if you're saying that when you look at the claim was based on a proper instruction set hyperlink what necessarily claim is calling for is for when you should be set hyperlink the address that you were pointing towards the same and dress that ways that you're pointing at when k but in this case there could be other methods of translating that content without changing the u r l and dr far transfer fix expert speculates about a lot of things that perhaps a plug in application could do but for all the reasons  by the board in our brief they simply don't describe those but disturbingly their claim construction would encompass those solutions which is exactly the reason we have the written description required to police against that and with regard to the labels versus the u submit that you could for example change the sign over the holland tunnel to rename it or to translate that sign into a different language but they still go to the same place a u r l is a is a place on the internet  below this piece of the plane that talks about translating the electronic communication necessarily required translating the t an argument at least to this court that there has to be a translation of the hyperlink and that they made similar types of arguments at least to the board but as we point out in our brief it's really nonsensical to talk version of that new site it just doesn't work that way because it is a u r l denotes a particular location on the internet and so the to do patent first of all isn't even directed to translating further blanks are only three sentences that are addressed to us all and i think that's important because if translating the entire document necessarily required some sort of translation of the u r l portion of the hyperlink there would be no need to say also by the way you may replace the you are all with the new hyperlink that points to a different destination you would have already addressed that in the context of translating the electronic communication itself and with regard to  argument counsel is making about lack brit's in the file history i would like to address that in terms of blackbirds having these pre established directories of pre transplant content that goes to different elements of the claimed claimed one and again at the end of the day the arguments that were made about said hyperlink at a four four nine cited by the board and then repeated by the examiner in allowing the claims in the inner parties reexamined are unequivocal you describing with the calls explorer bar lev been implemented as an internet browser plug in it gives the functionality of a plug in your own or at the top of column five could refers to part of that functionality supporting the translation of web activated it interrupts the pointing to a particular address and then reroute the user to a different address in order to arrive at a translated seven one of the things you plug in does here is quote communicate with the translation manager that's the interruption you're talking about now instead of going to the walmart dot com as judge will put it you go to the translation manager the proxy server that's going to serve the translated version of walmart dot com so you communicate with a translation manager via the internet to request translation in response to a keystroke mouse action voice command or other method now admittedly that doesn't limit it to the further communications to the additional links but nor does it limited to only the first click and so what you have here is a description of getting to a translation done by the translation manager which is i left an additional click the translation is not automatic there but no i think this is still the same concept it did the plugins are shown in the figures your honor and the graphics has dropdown menus or buttons on the browser things like that and the are very clear that you can pick languages for example so when you click on the dropdown menu it comes down it shows you french spanish german italian japanese and then you pick the language you want but still called one click in this pat talks about that is the thing that activates the translation being that click on the language that you choose but there is other interaction that's permitted the concept is to reduce interaction overwhelmingly but not necessarily to get it down really to a single click that does everything and that's where i think there's a real breakdown of the argument for it is you have you have an admission from the patent office that the claims for the specification is about reducing clicks and that the  specific ation is about replacing links but then the claim somehow or supposed to be about preserving the links it just doesn't make sense in that big picture of the patent if you're going to reduce the number of clicks the cleanest simplest way describing the