we begin today i just want to say on behalf of the court and up this panel i'd like to welcome to go up or to our couric he's sitting by designation and from his normal home in the central district of california and we're very contention that it was wrong as a matter of law for the district court given that the term with them take us to then turn to person skilled in the art to determine what the meaning of the term was no that isn't the contention the contention is that all parties agreed that the term be not have a plain an ordinary meaning full parties agreed that the term must be drawn from the specification h p s definition of the state from the specification was the full definition from the specification cornell's definition from the specification was a cherry picked one that only included one of the structures in the specification the only way the district court got to accepting that construction was through consider of extrinsic evidence that  in the context all of a definition would both parties to agree that it wasn't a planing or me meaning situation that the definition had to be drawn from the specification crew not i mean but but the priority reliance was on experience that cabinets and you're on a plane differentiation doesn't help cornell here because the claim that dependent claims included alpha  term they want to be included in the main definition so under that claimed if you were to apply a claim differentiation then the term dispatch stack would have no no content and you would only get the subsidiary elements from the district court on questionable found it necessary to rely on register renaming in river to satisfy the written description requirement and the quote is accordingly for purposes of the written description requirement and i'm quoting from the chamber well now it is sufficient that one of would never sco at the time of the invention would have recognized registering naming as surprised or a technique  essential this dependency is earlier on in that third seizure the jam oh well lays out in detail with more details about registering naming and what was considered by the renaming in order to conclude that the patent satisfied the written description and that's improper it was improper before area and it certainly is improper after area so i these instructions ever going to be the computing to environment as a representative environment there's nothing in the patent it says that the one in only one kind of dispatch stat is or in fact yes because there was evidence of this on multiple counts for example h p s on expert dr waltz testify that he came up with a royal damages order of seven point seven million dollars as follows he took the twenty three billion dollars c p u model as a royalty big in those a real world transaction seven hundred thousand instances where customers selected and purchased a c p u module then what he did is he took mr austin doris eighty percent royalty rate meg applied by a so called cost of just one factor and came up with seven point seven million jury could readily of looked at that and said you know while the only reliable base here is to see if you macho we're going to cart back a lot on cornell's two point five percent opinion is that a trial for presume that the jury was required to use hypothetical processor revenues as the royalty base when in fact d gave three different estimates of processor revenue all widely divergent and they were estimates because he only had data for three of the eight generations of processes and for one of thousand they had a choice between the eight thousand c p u module and time and time again they selected the eight thousand purchased it and nothing in the place that not even the t t and so that's your answer for why the demand but the percentage increase decline in sales at the end of your honor i think of the period that may have been the case but also we that the instruction format is not sample the instruction format utilized by the present invention will be considered first that's at the bottom of column two the order instruction instruction unit which is the portion of the processor that issues instructions it also requires the determination of alpha s one alpha as to invaded the ip of the answer to that mr pup laska i think would say fields you don't know if you don't have any dependencies unless you use that people now i can look through the record and i couldn't see any evidence that you know i'm at regarding potential equivalent because of course under one twelfth equivalently part of literal be didn't have to because claim construction with decided the early in the prompt that doesn't mean that i don't think one claim construction is decided you want to be held accountable for not presenting evidence that the claim construction the district court rejected i mean do you i mean about the subsequent judges revalidation of the claim construction but the original one done by the district court was really early in the process i mean i guess i'm a little had been called against them failure to interview seven and up the claim construction it would no longer at issue in the because the processor had many older elements in it then the alleged infringing device and so even the processor base had to be adjusted so there's a lot of language or some language at least in our recent and that's all the evidence there is at the trial if you take his testimony at all let me ask you about taking out his testimony it seems to me your argument as to why did testimony should be excluded it seems to me boils down to the fact that the consumer demand was shaky if it's a question of whether or not the evidence is shaky why doesn't that go to a jury why isn't the relevance and reliability of what the testimony was something that's left to the jury or supposed to striking is servers the size of a viking refrigerator they have thousands of components and it is it is that that the lease was properly excluded judge really were excluded that is the base and they're is it can't be will p great be you to address a problem it can theoretically rather but it wasn't here because the very next point the jury was total is whether the specific features covered in the one fift patent were the basis for consumer fan for the prada so there was no it didn't decide that question and if you decide that yes you can include an active components in the basics we know absolutely for sure but they answered that question yes because they had a choice between an eight billion dollars base that didn't include as many hampton components and the twenty three billion dollar base that they did they traverse the twenty three billion dollar beings so we know there's no question that the jury determined this issue adversely to h p and as i said a moment ago there's also no question that the evidence is insufficient to support it because judge crater said there isn't enough evidence to there was evidence for them to come home or the one percent totally independent over your portion issues i didn't know stewart was cross examined pretty harshly on that two point five percent rate and he'd never seen a license in this computer field for a single patent at one percent or over so there was plenty of evidence here or he's never seen it not in this technology not in the computer business to consider to come up with a point eight percent rate independent of the evidence concerning apportionment and we know now for sure that they determined that a portion was not proper customer demand it's some evidence but it's not sufficient evidence in why one of the the two wells that the level of discussion of that evidence that you or that you just recited your honor is that the processor level the processor has to be fast the evidence was there were four or five reasons why the process will was fast one of them was the pattern invention and there were five or six o that the testimony that your poor that's the damage base that a billion dollar damage base that's just fine but that doesn't justify the twenty three billion dollars base of the for a million dollar unit that had hundreds of their patented technology involved in it and was sold because of age he's name a lot of building and many many other factors and order it there were multiple witnesses on that on that subject multiple witnesses the jury at the server the judge had the server in front of them and the witness walked down and showed all these  a seven three one zero and there's other factors too such as the extent to which the infringing has made you the invention so the jury is being told here that they can do in a portion of the value of the invention that adjusting the rate in the rate in the base are intertwined and if we look at our work mr wallace did it was the i heard the cost of manufacture which was an estimate divided by the cost of mayfair through march and he came up with seven point seven million dollars now factor we're going to take a tenth of that to capture the value of the invention that's in the module and that is also supported by mr austin doris testimony in at least two respects no one has said that this and have come up with the same number is that my understanding that you're at or articulating were our position that there were two separate insufficient ways that