construction i would like to address the account for all the council before you get into the construction and maybe this is putting my just a court hat on but i always hate to be the only one of the rumored doesn't really know what's going on and so my question is is construction is renders this renders the one hundred and eighteen inconsistent with the standard or are you saying that because of this it's it's clear that the prize and doesn't really practice  marker that can handle all modes of coding instead of you could have different re three synchronization markers for the different modes of coding or you could every synchronization marketa handles all mo the markers that we would be pointing to for infringement read don't cover all of them correct that cover one or maybe two but not all three and all variations thereof but you know what we're thinking i'm modes but it would still be in french ation is coming in invention that necessarily and i think this is what the district court construed it as that the method has to work for all three mode a car with tires and you have rain tires snow tires regular tires you're not and its best case is that you could use this invention with any of those three you don't have to have the claim i think that there's three things significant in that sentence one is the or one is the word possible and the other one is does not entail the insertion of any specific flag when you limit the construction to al anything further do you want to yes if there's nothing further from the panel on the on the almost issue the disclaimer issue construction saucer reflect a disclaimer specific flak when you read this or when when you import or requirement that it has to handle almost the coding you are limiting the invention to a specific black one that covers all know the coding but the but the is clear that not limited to a specific flag and it's possible to have flags that cover or be coding as long as they meet the other requirements of the rethink your position marker which are those two key it relates to the claim limitations re synchronization marker not one but two district court judges have found that the appropriate scope is that the resynchronize ation marker must be used in order to mark excluded blacks of all three counsel concede which is true that following the standard the standard is not set up for exclusion of macro blocks of all three types there is no dispute that the following the standard one cannot  actually think that under the court's claim construction there's two separate reasons that neither the standard nor any of arises products to implement the standard can in french as a matter of law so so this under the standard you're  excluding you're only excluding what p or are you able to exclude the others i don't think that there's any evidence on that i think that what we know is that it's not possible to exclude i and the reason for that the reason i hesitate is that it actually has to do with the way that you are going to reconstruct the types of coded images and i image is have to be reconned they have to be reconstructed using spatial recognition so the information has to be with in the image itself and so there's no question that that type of reconstruction which has to be performed on i coded images is not possible in the standard ok thank you so if you want to talk about what is the appropriate disavowal and why the district court judges got it right i agree with counsel that we need to look at the last paragraph of column four  where st i want to draw the court's attention to actually the last sentence of that where it has the key words which are according to the invention this is not according to embody months of the invention or certain aspects this is what the invention is and that sentence reads the exclusion of macro blocks from coding according to the invention does not entail the insertion of any specific flags and the exclusion of macro blocks from coding is thus possible for all  i we had a little discussion this is judge broached we had a little discussion with your friend about the import of the word or and most say i read it is inclusive it didn't trouble me it's like saying i have no dietary restrictions so i can eat not dairy or we that's the way you read it that's exactly the way that i read it your honor and i think that is grammatically correct might it be you know of might it be more clear word and was there yes but we think that it is clear as it's written and certainly if you look at the key language which is all there there is absolutely no ambiguity that what you're talking about i every one of the modes that follow and the nd point that i think brings that home and this is really what judge hill stressed focused on is where it's earlier in the paragraph disparaging the prior art there's a very parallel structure in what set up about the problem of the prior art and then ultimately the solution that this invention brings and that's again a column four hundred and fifteen five thousand two hundred and fifty six where it says that as a consequence this prior art and paid for standard flat can only be used for peacoat images so that's the problem that's the problem that we're trying to solve is that it can only be used for a certain type of coding and what this invention solves and we know that because going to the end of the paragraph we're talking about coding according to the invention is that it is now possible for all modes of coding the problem w it could only be used for peacoat it the solution is that it's now possible for all modes of coding so any potential ambiguity with the word or is is certainly in context with the words all those very about all of column seven i think is very consistent with fries and position and what the district court judges found which is that you have to have us resynchronize ation marker that's going to work for all three types of coding and there's two things within this column that i want to bring the court's attention to the one is where it does talk about coding and that's the paragraph that is that column seven and begins that like line thirty two dollars and this again is talking about once we have received the video packet which we know is going to have excluded micro blocks macro black scuse me this is talking about it can be any of the three types paragraph is actually try and test various types of air concealment and that was from line forty nine it actually refers to that as an advantage advantageous part of the embodiment that's presented here is that you can try and test various types of air concealment we know that it works for all three types and if there was a flag that was only for i coded images we wouldn't need to do this trial and error because we would know that you have to be doing spatial reconstruction and so this part of the specification which does talk about using all three types is consistent only with the  differ from you the one you off so if it's similar to the one that we offered in one important way which is that it has to be everything going to zation marker that can serve the dual purpose that we talked about which is the conventional purpose of serving as a recent gonna zation point and then the new added purpose which is for air concealment and reconstruction that you're going to actually mark if there's an excluded macro block so that was something that variety been argued for below and is consistent with what the district court judge did the nd part of his construction which is they have to mark that exclusion for all modes of coding was actually it's in line with the disemboweled that we urged below but we had just urged it in connection with another part of the claim we had urged that the preamble which refers to coding a digital image needed to be construed consistently with the disavowal to perform coding for exclusion of macro blacks than to this type of digital images and so his his overall construction was consistent with the various aspects that we were putting forward we had just searched it in connection with with a different part of of the and there's absolutely nothing in the record that supports that there's nothing in the intrinsic record that supports it and and both uniloc and horizons have been a declarations here and there was nothing in the that you know lot can point to from either of those declarations of support that there are multiple types of modes of each coding such that that's how you could construe the all modes of quoting the other thing that he said is that the st part of there's no reason to justify that there's if anything a flag that marked only i images or only p images is is a more specific flag and serves a more specific purpose than a recent conversation marker that can work for any type of coding and finally the point that if it's all that if that's what we have if we have a system where you have a different type of free synchronization marker that can marker that can only be used for coated images that is what column for lines fifty four to fifty five was describing as the problem with the mpeg four standard this patent had had  improvements over that standard the st is that it added the dual purpose it was no longer requiring a flag that serves only the purpose of marking excluded blocks instead it was going to reuse the existing single sequence of bit must cover all mode of coding for each of those types of images of this sentence clearly implies that there can be many different modes for each of those and that there is no specific flag that covers all of those modes one last point on the issue of the word or whether it was argued that we point the court to page seventeen before page twenty of the opening brief as well thank you we thank both console and the cases