If
)
then for all

we have that
x^{n+r} + a \sigma^{n}(b_{r+1})x^{n+r+1} + \ldots + a \sigma^n(b_{s})x^{s+n})
. As

is a group we have that all the terms pair off, and so we have that
 = a\sigma^n(b_t))
for all

.
Let
 = b\})
. If
 = m)
then let

. It is clear that both
)
and
)
as they are invarient under automorphisms and are subfields of the ring.
So, we wish to show that
 \leq P_{o(\sigma)})
or if
 = \infty)
,
 \leq P)
. That is to say,

and either
)
or

.
Rearranging
 = b_t \sigma^t(a))
we get that
\sigma(a^{-1}) = \sigma^{-1}(b_t^{-1}a) = b_t^{-n}a^t)
. As

is arbitrary we have that
 = b_t )
for all

and
 = a^{t})
. Thus,

is invariant under every single automorphism and
)
for all

. Thus,

or
)
(as
})
), and

, and we are done...almost.
It still needs to be shown what

is. My initial thought was that it was the prime subfield (thus, I denoted it

). However, if

is trivial this is not the case. Thus, i suspect that the prime subfield is the intersection of all the

's (it is certainly contained in the intersection). What

actually is will depend on

, and will either need someone with more knowledge of fields than I, or someone with a bigger brain...