say we will certainly get that i don't know if you're on our  and your honor it's a motion to dismiss it's we can't raise expert testimony at that very early stage it's about a motion for judgment on the pleadings and so it's improper to raise months your honor there's two pieces to your question we parse them out first with respect to claim construction as this court has stated previously often it's important to construe the claims in order to engage in the alice analysis in our position is your honor or when we are discussing the issue in the background section we cite a number of clean constructions and in particular i believe it's on page eight of our opening br and in addition i am sorry on page five and six the district court treated independent claim one as representative and then went on to describe what the claim means and i want to tie this to the second  here i will say i will say this your honor the claim construction issue is really not the focus of our appeal the focus of our appeal she just got a yes sir the first important thing is that this should have been done under clinton construction let me make clear i apologize if there are two issues here one is there are disputed claim terms between the parties and as this court has recognized when they are disputed claim terms it description of what your invention does and there's nothing in your own description on page six that leads me to think this is an eligible invention point me to where you said this claim specifically construction that the district court refused  contrary conclusion on the eligibility iran or there are several places where we talk about the claim constructions that matter in particular areas and want to start with want we're is t one of the issues relates to page twenty one where we talk about the technological solution to a technological problem external entity we describe what an external entity is we describe what it is in a central get we describe on page twenty three and twenty four how claim construction is relevant to the question of whether computers are fundamentally different from humans and therefore iran or it's throughout the brief in the sense that we describe our understanding of the claim terms and what they mean when and with respect to others your understanding of those claimed terms different from what the district four relied analysis because it seems to me he described your invention in the exact same way that you do your honor actually the way he described our invention is through a hypothetical that was created by us a that hypothetical was then modified by the judge in order to describe what the claim terms mean and to apply i want to one and that's improper remember the purpose of us in i mean we spend at least five minutes trying to get specifics from you on th entity for instance you give us one specific example of how a claim construction of external entity based upon the clean language in the specifications would change the outcome here yes your honor the external entity understanding whether it is a particular entity that's focused on goods or services and how that entity interacts with the central into t as well as the user that helps want it can be a bank it can be a person it can be whatever that's not what these claims are about they're about third party authentication and that's an abstract idea and pointing to a specific computer is specific location and putting construction doesn't matter in this case you can tell me what everyone want to define external entity and central in a t it's not going to make this abstract idea up authentication more concrete so it's certainly not going to improve computer functioning because this isn't directed at computer actually it's a directed at authentication of identity your honor it is absolutely directed towards authentication of identity and i want to get back to this question about where we raise this issue below so in the disputed claim terms below the question of dynamic the question actually was were you ninety seven ninety eight copy of titian to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim filed before the u s p t o and it's alleged to be a pro se filing by  document that they then file with the u s p t o and this is something that happens regularly it's not a violation of the rules and what the facts testimony at trial demonstrated is the reason why they filed it say is because worthless it is a quote from the hearing transcript and from the five day trial your honor where is it i apologize your honor this i have a bunch of questions about made up language your honor if you look at three six eight nine you see that mr pearson is talking about the commissioners and making an argument about the standards and  worthless my recollection your honor is that is part of the larger discussion  it there could have been a situation with a closing of a quote your honor i'm not seeing it on on that specific page district court judge rejected that position is to court said i've already ruled he's your witness for these questions where did you challenge the district court's finding mr goulden she was was not an adverse wit clearly that the part about being foreign you say yes your honor on one at one point he questioned the citizenship and origin of the individual inventors and i read that site to that page and in fact it it followed eighty mine which was all omitted in which the witness said that he didn't speak english very well as nick correct your honor that i my recollection as well and wasn't and was in the court simply inquiring about the ability of the individual to speak english i can't i can't speak as to the court thought about the situation a then we'll go to that record when we get to the next case and you can explain because i think it's crystal clear that that's a direct misrepresentation to this court that you're making we disagree your honor i apologize if the court witnesses you cited j forty one sixty seven where the district court said it's sufficient enough evidence to oppose this conspiracy if i can figure out why i did it and that's why i'm listening to all the evidence how does will i do your honor so how is that a fine it's it's it's his view of how it's an observation by a judge you know the difference and i understand your honor we didn't mean to imply that it's a finding of fact you specifically appealed a mark when construction issue either and they either did they raise a specific issue in the briefing and the argument before the district court below the court so found in the final two the west list or on westlaw or lexis from another case and our belief was at the time that a miscarriage the other side of this characterize that testimony and i think that the  judge respectfully may have been confused about the point that they were making but at no time in this case in the record before this court was there any such testimony in fact the testimony from mr goh d c as well as the  plaintiffs here could claim priority back to the original eight thirty seven patent there's no way that the four thirty two patent could be valid because it's in high care about the same specification and so  eventually and that was was one of the issues and one of the challenges obviously there were a number of issues that we raised in our in our briefing one that i just want to point out that that more specifically on the one twenty nine patent is that over the course of the prosecution of these patents even up into the trial the plaintiff the plaintiffs and inventors continually switched patent lawyers and one of the lawyers that they used was mr ford court and when mr ford court took over on the day that he took over he actually filed a power of attorney at the patent office in the application for both the one twenty nine and what became the four thirty two bad on the same day he filed terminal disclaimers in those two pending applications and so in a reasonable pattern where you would no one would understand that if the same lawyer filed powers of attorneys and those two separate pending applications on the same day and interpersonal disclaimers on the same day that that attorney understood that those were related applications and about that relates to the unintentional that i don't think there would have been anything wrong with that from an inequitable conduct standpoint i think that the the problem is that the rules of the patent office on the thirty seven c f r one point seven acre require that the inventors when they undertook something like fifteen or sixteen months after this litigation had begun to file that sworn declaration they did so without talking to  acknowledge that fact your honor i think the only the only response is is that under a fair a sense while it's true that we can't meet our burden if there is an equally reasonable alternative th problem that we have is that given the number of attorneys and the number of acts that occurred over the number of years it becomes more and more difficult to say that what they did was reasonable it was isolated your honor it was plaintiffs refused to give it to them and we knew that they had continuation of applications pending and since this trial occurred in april of two thousand and sixteen two additional patents in this family have issued and my understanding is that there are another six decision we have an abuse of discretion standard the district court had multiple motions you haven't heard any evidence in this record that different experts in this area have different views as to whether you can claim priority this original application claimed priority directly to the thirty seven not through the six seven six but directly to the thirty sec the question is whether that is a misrepresentation one of the district wants findings here is well different experts have different views about whether the clean priority to something that isn't all pending which is a surprise to me i would have thought the experts pretty much agreed that you could experts wouldn't know how to go about getting priority which is lead to him to find that this was incompetence then but not probably but i cannot find a single statement from an expert that said experts or even not mis characterizing what we were trying to explain is given all of the patent attorneys that had provided testimony to the court the patent attorneys testimony demonstrated that the question of continuity  single expert in any of these proceedings that it's confusing for it's questionable whether claims have to be cooking or not that seems to me the fundamental basis rock conclusion that any expert in  nothing in the record that supports and so the district court's conclusion to that effect is error the district court made a statement about pendency that was not the focus of the analysis i think reasonable people decision relies on he correct factual conclusions in the degree of deference it may be the same but the outcome may change your honor at this particular question co pendency is not a factual conclusion that's honor i'm actually making a different point the their focus was on whether it was fraud on the office to claim fail to claim the priority through the children application all i accept that you're making a different point but that different point has nothing to do with what judgments just said you so i guess we can stop here and go to the next case your honor one last point i want to make there just to be clear there were many factual points that the judge took into account this was just one of them and just because the judge might focus on a particular aspect relating to cope and then c does not mean that they demonstrated  your honor the i can't concede that it's error i think the focus of the analysis is focused really on whether see ip or continuation is the issue so the judge noting this co pendency