we have three cases for argument this morning mr ball under is that right when you're ready of this is confidential so be careful but basically if you if you look to hear the about the middle of the first paragraph there once an incoming requests low balance and sent to the page server that that heard this is capable of doing it but it's also capable of operating in different ways right throughout the show del actually does that and so yeah i mean yes and if we're going to if we can look at the if we can look at the case study did you say ninety fifty one nine zero it's ninety eighty seven ok i'm sorry that's a ninety nine computers a web server and two page servers only really makes sense if you are concurrently process if you're only if you're only using one computer at a time you don't need two computers or three computers so that the whole  particular websites must frequently process thousands of current requests for dynamic content message ninety six ninety five there was the again the i mean that does the does he spell it out maybe as clearly i think honestly that was he didn't think this was going to be a speech because because of what i've just explained that whole process is three point two billion requests per quarter according to del does in fact concurrently process and you have to review this evidence in the light most favorable to hurl the networks in other words when when they're saying are to the demands are on our system are so great that we had to we had t told us that they usually are in this way where is that i mean i don't understand why you're not pointing us to that if he actually said something specifically about dell concurrently processing well it right you're not if you're taking every inference in our favor seems to be very the very easily satisfied threshold standard and i would say that on appeal microsoft does not appear to dispute that bill process the number of requests at the same time and they s indicated that they have systems that generate over one million dynamic wind pages per day and that they use this configuration with multiple computers so you're into your battle you can keep going or you can say preserv where i would like some addressed the questions the court had about concurrently processing what council says is that the sheer sort of number of requests must mean that there has to be concurrent processing taking place and we don't dispute that there is processing the request for the dynamic web page the web server has to be concurrently processing other requests and that is where there is literally zero evidence either from d jones parent or networks expert or from any documents and in fact we proffered page twenty eight of the red brief the recent systems that we use a are are at the end this weighted round robin that they talk about none of which would be concurrently processing the way the claim requires one system might be where all web page requests both dynamic and static are being processed by the page server therefore you don't have the the claim and the third possibility is where all dynamic web page requests are being processed by page server and group other requests are being processed by a different server not the web server those are three systems right there where the use these different ways that it could have been implemented i think that at exactly your honor in fact what the judge did was keep walking through the three limitations that the claim so the claim has one limitation is routing and the district court judge in this case went limitation by limitation and said you never asked that question in the survey asked but the survey doesn't have to go through each of those claimed limitations does it it's only in the odd circumstances like here where you would have to do that is that correct the survey doesn't have to they're going to vitamin c inside absolutely and inject jordan address fight a mix saying the survey doesn't have to prove infringement but it somehow has to be link there with all not just that it didn't show infringement they just didn't even ask if they were using the choose products for that purpose the next is the claims require the web server to concurrently process multiple requests yet the survey did not ask the respondents if they know if that if you if i'm understanding the key stock rackley in this and understanding judge jordan's concern about that survey correctly i think what it is is that it's not enough to say that this is a r r because there one considers that the accused products can be used for a variety of not infringing purposes so that's exactly where your honor say if you don't have that situation and then you don't have to ask those questions but if you do have the situation then you have to be specific counsel so there are just a couple of issues that were brought up in them which the reply brief that we haven't had an opportunity to address one is that in the reply brief it is argued that for the first time that i judge jordan brought out that this the fact that there had to be only some processing going on in the web server and not a judge jury and the summary judgment and doubtless so we turn to appendix one two four ninety five there was a discussion about intercepting and at one two four ninety five at  processing and then if we go to page seventy five at that same appendix citation line ten parallel networks sands to the district court the key to the patent when you read it is that there has to be an interception that occurs and i think this is what the pre construction goes to there has to be an intercept interception that occurs but for the web server does something substantive to it so where nothing substantive no substantive processing can occur at the web server and so it's no surprise that the judge gordon bennett that same appendix citation on page seventy seven line five says right yes i've got your argument to figure that out in order to decide when you're going to route it the paper server so that's how that whole discussion came about but it was an agreed upon instruction and then we followed that instruction at trial where our expert and our fact witnesses upon that there was that stand substantial microsoft uses that and there is no infringement and we have three grounds intercepting that in fact we do a substantial amount of processing at the web server before the requests to send releasing we never release the web decided that there were some some evidence that should've let the delicate question go to the jury and that there simply isn't what would have happened is the same result the jury would have found no infringement because  system the way we use our own system we didn't directly in french so we certainly weren't inducing dallal to directly in fridge since we weren't directly infringing and unless the court has any of those students i would think you just for one thing the trial was not on a r so if there is a question coming back about issue preclusion that hasn't been raised yet they would need to show that the systems are identical for all three claims if i can say about the image and the other is that the that phrase before before the request is processed means before that before the processing present tense moves of the past tense is process and that's really the point you intercepted before the before it's processed before the the process is completed so in other words when when we said the substantia that was a way of saying well yes before you intercepted before the page generated sexually as we're not being inconsistent and there's no limitation there about a significant amount of handling and really the trial based they didn't point to any kind of generation that was done by the web server that was done by  ship but but isn't the limitation on handling all done by the first part of that which is you divert the handling before processing you divert governed by handling well then the to substantially then why is that dirty because it is not generating a web page it's diverting it before the web pages generally but that's not what the claim construction says it doesn't say anything about handling before the web pages is generated it has before it's process that's right and we know and we know because judge jordan said that can not be read to me no processing occurs at the web server so it must be