not entirely fair malisse or not entirely objectively unreasonable and so given the lower standard as opal's technologies a stated considerably lower standard that we have in opting that the c complete language i had was not entirely unreasonable or frivolous not completely without support not entirely frivolous or object really reasonable that was entirely completely that's a zero tolerance standard that's support for the legal position of a special purpose computer with no algorithm in fact each one of those positions was shot down by the district court as a legal position so we have the absence of legal support but we're only here because they lost i mean papers the discourse was wrong because we have a situation where we never had any support for the special purpose computer no out of the imposition we got to the reply brief in california after almost two and a half years of litigation and searched for and located in northern district of illinois opinion and besant support the position in fact the district court confirmed it doesn't support the position that was propounded by the plaintiffs and then there was a katz free man from the central district of california opinion that somehow it was a burden shifting position to the plain it to the defendants excuse me with respect to we had a duty to provide evidence that this is not a general purpose computer there was an obvious question of whether we're asking a special purpose computer or a general purpose computer and that's exactly what the plaintiff was doing this isn't dismissing to me that the issue here is that there is a special purpose computer but that without additional software it doesn't script a website database a third arm those are general purpose computers they do don't do anything special and then there is no algorithm and as this court has made clear quite frankly a lot of what had been going on in the case why can't we look at that and say look this preceded there was i won't say confusion that might be too strong but there was some give and take in the case it's clear they lose they were wrong but it's not sufficient lack of clarity in what the law was we got a cat's exception and if you didn't need the cat exception you needed eight and algorithms to be a special purpose computer whether in prose or in steps it doesn't have the source code no one suggesting that but that's what you needed in this situation and what we had and we we presented that to plaintiffs throughout this process and there was no effort made yes there was additional computer structures general structure it's abit but th this as you know depending on the case of the already in things like that which is fine but you're not in my mind addressing the heart of the issue would that and focusing on the hard issue which is the before this court on memphis function elements and actually found to be indefinite but you know the indy's of your wrist to crack in two thousand and ten in the brown case and they should have known them all of these factors that you use it out here in respect to that abuse of discretion as you go through the opinion of the district court judge is applying the standard throughout which is affectively the of that objective rebase the standard that was thrown out by the supreme court in in octane  and in fact that's right and in the sense of not entirely or not without foundation or not completely looking for the absence of any support that's not to the past in opting was a position that simply stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of the parties litigation pursued position governing the governing law on facts of the case and its instead what we see throughout this opinion from the summary on page thirteen eight thirteen to stand out as totally exceptional and his experience in the courts express it and again i would suggest to your honor's that with a case with one patent one claim it needs was functional means we're not talking about the multiple claims we just heard in the where a judge says illusions are frivolous highly problematic they strain credibility they're difficult to make logical sense of they didn't follow the law in fact there was no support for their finding any structure here that even arguably one of the functions and what what the what specification does it talks about the g c i software and so on and so forth but obviously specialized software is needed to push on these functions and that and in the specification says that if you look at column three line sixty three by augmenting replacing existing agents and many of them just ration methods with specialized tools on a little website and then it talks about the software tools again and again and again but it never says it is what the tools satisfies that requirement so that's the problem i'm having so help me all right well first of all we didn't feel plain construction as far as indefinite is go there is no didn't appeal it but the question here it is a district or it's not wholly unreasonable and if we agree with that with a district court that it's not wholly unreasonable probably a mark tells us that we should a irm but the so the question is is that is this is this for a list is it wholly a reason why i'm suggesting to you that the description of the structure here is so very indefinite that it can't possibly potentially satisfy the requirements of having some structure in the ones that would perform the function because it just refers to it as software tools or specialized software that's the problem that as as as satellite date read this and i'd and i would refer the court to the declaration of our expert dr levy and who which was submitted along with the claim construction our understanding this technology his understanding of technology in the context of that was that these terms it is talking about are the c g i script and the form which would be a robot's text file and the database and those what argument the server so we had it with what ultimate this was was a factual dispute were experts on both sides one was saying that this this structure performs a function the structures are going to the function another expert who said the structure isn't it doesn't perform it isn't linked and ultimately and it's reflected in the court what i'm saying is that say that date was reasonable and that our expert and i think his qualifications were not challenged his opinions when i challenged on it i bear it clear opinions at this software was sufficient words he sa to perform these specific functions that the the opening function the courier the creating function the identifying function of the tree the transmitting function is different that that has that's the web specific functions and that was fundamentally dr lady as position that one of ordinary skilling i would also understand just like the specification teaches that this software when installed on a server perform certain functions and that's where we saw the special purpose computer now the court has disagree with that the court said that additional additional disclosure is necessary and  expert's opinion as to whether that whether this software  saying is that these these are now local phone functions that are being performed on the server so it's taking a burden off of the crawler it's allowing all kinds of benefits for the web site owner so a city i script was not new but it's this fashion is what is new maybe they're used in this fashion is new but it were to be used in this fashion you need new software which is repeatedly referred to here but not described in in the way that's  whether the details were there in that's a thing we have a different understanding as to whether this software performs these functions without any additional teaching and the court held that it required to tional teaching which it added certain steps in an algorithm and we respect that but our view was certainly reasonable and it was based upon a reasoned view the patent based upon what it what the patent says that these functions perform so that's why i don't think in every case one side is wrong and if in almost every claim construction battle one one side is wrong and that's not the touchdown i think what the quote you focus on is that  wasn't without support in the specification i'd also point out on the indefiniteness you know new legs first point construction briefing and in the in texas did not claim that these elements were indefinite so they're they're saying that were you plain of are have acted frivolously because you didn't realize or your claim elements were indefinite when they they didn't either and it's their job as a defendant to point those kinds of things out so if the defendant doesn't initially pointed out i think it's it's more difficult to say that the plaintiff should be fired for not led you and california to change your instruction there and to lose in texas issues we're coming forth with more structure in our in our constructions so that my my colleague said that there was a finding that those going to structure frivolous that's not correct that's not what the district court said he said i would have likely found the frivolous had they not changed he did not court in its opinion goes through the parties proposed instructions the next proposed construction for means for parsing the alternative construction if it wasn't found indefinite was a web site server which parts of the c disclosure so again i don't think they can have it both ways to say that they they've taken all these positions and now just because we've lost we are we should be held under a higher standard now this patent was it's been this case been allo statement that we took the position of terms were indefinite and in fact with respect to those terms that were identified as as your honor pointed out that for the means for transmitting and means for parsing we argued those terms were definitely provided an alternative construction given the burden and e later web site database a web site server which could be my home computer sending information back and forth tells me nothing you know that can't be a routine patent case we take on the expert and the expert back or leave effects in the expert report is that the law that the the expert relied on in his report was the law provided to him by counsel which is the last of the district court has found actually had no support for their opinion you know we see that the experts declaration and in that late the declaration if we look at the means for enabling there is no linkage no linkage conductive in that expert's declaration in fact i opened up what counsel's playing to and you asked about the expert separation in a sixteen ten at the end paragraph seventy nine in just a throwaway sentence after citing many paragraph without telling us how it's lying so the absence of linkage both by the party and the expert and that's why you don't see the expert's opinion cited once by the district court in either opinion books furniture or