have to put signals in the context of the particular modifiers that the court had under consideration correct right but because the court in this case limited the words signal unnecessarily and without any justification have the same problem with the call a carrier frequency or just a frequency before anything is happened to it it's still the same thing right yes or on a kind of but you said it would be ok to define in that manner it would be able to find in the minute in that manner at that specific place and explain the claims have signals that other place and the issue here is really when reconstruction is performed on the signal so if we define it in that manner limiting the claim to the order and when reconstruction is perform the way we understand the claim is you have to do the reconstruction action on that said signal before there's any mixing or down conversion to introduce a frequency and that's in light of the specification i think there's some pretty strong persistent language throughout the various columns that make it pretty clear that the way i just described an understanding of our rights signal or analog signal it's just in that very way that maybe there's some preemptive occasion filtering going on after the signal gets pulled off the antenna but very certainly all of that reconstruction action is occurring before the mixing before the down conversion to an intermediate frequency and so i think what you're asking us to do is don't don't necessarily an inquiry don't you have a problem in that your construction actually would be inconsistent with the very abound or at least one of the very about purposes of the invention that would be  s doesn't back get you over the top to say that that that you did that's not reading a limitation and that's just simply recognizing what the written description says i don't believe that's right your argument i think there can be me make sure i understand something so if we conclude that the district court was correct that that analog signal is limited r f signal is limited to carrier frequency al didn't see anywhere in the briefing where you try to parse out that your dispute over digitized signal is somehow in for one particular claim or to particular claim completely disconnected from whatever appeal i was actually talking to someone about that today it would depend on which one and we have to go back and look at the acoustic dollars here how we're aware of at this point my expenses all three of these are required to continue on with the case of infringement because there was a joint stipulation for entry the final judgment in order and below where it looks very clear that it says in light of the claim construction then the reconstruction issue so just from where i'm sitting right now that makes it sound like to me that if i were to hypothetically affirm any of the crime constructions on any one of those fo with respect to the reconstruction issue i'm i'm trying to decide which portion of the reconstruction analysis that that you are having trouble  one portion of a signal with another portion of the better portion of the signal and it has to occur or it operates on one way or one cycle of a wave which part of that fact that you are that the whole purpose here is to reconstruct the signal by by looking at the time that you have the signal and determining which is the best and then substituting environment there are different ways of reconstruction described in the specification some of which have been described by incorporation by reference so the answer your question is we're not we think the district  embodiments that were contemplated in the written description and pooled those common traits together to arrive at what was her best understanding of reconstruction right one is the mirroring thing where if if one the notions of plain ordinary meaning of the term what would be the plan an ordinary meaning of reconstruction over say a very direction of if you read the path and if there are i don't know i triple the article or exactly as you phrased it again going back to the notion of how much you have to win here to prevail on reconstruction that we have to conclude that all three pieces of the district court for construction are on i mean if we were to say that that maybe there were too many limitations read into it but that the we agree that that you have to replace distorted version of the waveform with an understorey inversion would the term i have has a plain even if we leave that out in our papers the plain meaning i have is is a signal that has been mixed down if it's neither i mean it's intermediate in a sense but it's in with respect to the frequency if any shift of the frequency from the carrier frequency now is an intermittent really makes sense i mean if intermediate simply are in those cases explaining the concept of the wrecked down from version but attempting to use terms of people understood there in this particular case in this patent it actually talked about intermediate frequency being something between two frequencies that that's not right it is the first interview frequency as is the frequency that is a product of mixing it never said that it couldn't be baseband or it couldn't be zero i asked it just doesn't speak to dictionary it's an intermediate step in the transmission or reception process and that's true going to zero i ask or basically it is in the middle of the process before you demodulate in decode the information so in fact you're not reading the word intermediate in any event the plain meaning of the term according to these references including an extra including an intrinsic reference and extrinsic references is that it can be zero hertz and there's nothing in the patent to the contrary now with respect to the reconstruction term which the court addressed for a moment reconstruction terms below american radio conceded that there is no plain meaning they conceded that below where there's not a plane meaning it's perfectly appropriate to look to the specification to define the terms you have you didn't ask the proper thing and the third prong of the construction operand is on a whole wave form or cycles did you that's correct your honor just the district court construction is slightly broader than the one that we had asked for before but we're perfectly comfortable with it slightly broader slightly narrow clinton narrows her eyes and what do you understand th and the replacement with the mirror image rather from those it had to define the term based on houston specifications because there is no plain meaning in a data set that suggest to do so at the core we try to do is look at those methods that are time you're looking for a distortion if there's a distortion you use either the opposite have or use something that comes from either wave that library or right and where do you find support for that in the written description i mean there's nothing in the claims that says it has to be done that way that's right but because we have this term reconstruction for which there isn't a plane meaning you have to look at how it's used in a specification and how it's described in the specification and it's always described in the specification as working on the  waveform one cycle in a time so that's the only way we can know what it means given that there is that given that there are body moments in which you can work on the waveform by reference to a library of information isn't it isn't it also possible that the different in the different wave forms so finding the particular piece to replace it has to be an independent analysis it's not necessarily that they're the same for the other reference for the series i'm playing on well because you may be doing it you know you look at the cycles refigure three and whether or not that whether you're at a certain frequency you have a certain characteristics you look at those each time and if you don't get it's not right then you replace then you go on to the next one if it is right then you go certain claims all talk about it about a signal that hasn't been down converted with a comes from the antenna but but let's just put those to the side yard because there are a lot of claims those claims have to be read in light of the specification they have to be read the signals that's a column for line fifteen to seventeen to specification also gives us a very very good clue that it can't have been down converted because that would actually frustrate the purpose of the of the of the pack to the goal of the band it said is further recognised by the presence invention it would be advantageous to accomplish such analysis prior to the non linear transformation of the r f signal to the eye of signal during mixing since the mixing will be inconsistent with the invention or there would be in conflict with the goals of the invention of couldn't couldn't you have a situation where you have multiple objects of the invention and they're satisfied by different kinds absolutely your honor but with respect to this particular object of no mixing you know no mixing before doubting no mission before you digitize and reconstruct with respect to that one is an object none of the other objects are inconsistent with it but more than that it's not only described as an object is described specifically as the present invention in the bard case tells us when you describe something as the present invention and not just an object you have to pay particular attention in the lizard tack and  case is taken in conjunction with bard which said when they see the prison invention he's telling you what the invention is of the patent to tell me that those two cases say a construction the thing conflict with the goals of the invention or that a brace is something that specifically criticized and distinguished would be a very peculiar construction indeed and wouldn't make any sense because you have to read the claims of course in light of the specification if you agree that this that the analog signal turns on a digital signal court has normally endorsed but the what i'm not sure of it would for the purpose of one of the present inventions and the like you said i think your honor there are other claims that would follow some of the other present inventions inventor defined i have and he's defining in terms of what's goes on in a super heterodyne receiver again as i think your honor understands you have a carrier frequency you have some any immediate stop and then you have a base band frequency that's how talks about talks about it so if if another reference is brought in by another patton's bottom by reference somehow departs from that whether it does or not i think we're it's a if you look at column one number seven five four patent lines ten through the bottom line ten through about line going he talks about the super heterodyne and how it how he's looking at it and tempting to prove upon