number over a variety of different prior art references and we went through in the lengthy briefs and the even lengthy or quite lengthy appendix the fact that this patent and its apparent previous instances they were a previous reexamination total and seven i p r petitions in all of those cases the examiners and or the board reached a conclusion that the these patentable over much of the same prior art as presented now in this appeal there are one of two new references but for the most part the prior art is more or less the same as it was in all of these various prior proceedings and the main reason why as far as we can tell this particular reexamination is coming out differently is boils down to what we view as a claim construction issue and it's a claim construction issue that we do not believe the board the same for the other class the claim has three elements there's a satellite communication subsystem a wireless local area network i'm paraphrasing for the nd time and then we get to this rd element of the mobile unit and the mobile  so it's a kind of a mouthful but it is that element that we believe is being interpreted by you examine or in this next part they resume a nation and then the board and then even the director and it's response of appeal brief differently than it ever was interpreted in any of the privacy ticks so as such we believe that conflicts with all of those privacy things doesn't follow them is precedent and is incorrect there are three things about this element that prior leave these are precedent well we we believe that the board's own ruling in the i p r access precedent we understand that the board is not bound by previous examiner findings but we believe the board should be found should be bound by its own previous findings was incorrect and the board change that but the result of that was that the examiner considered the respect to the rest of the claim as the function being performed by that means elements and didn't get any patent await me to say if you could find prior art that showed that structural element it didn't matter whether it perform the function even though the board overruled that issue and this and concluded that it should not be repeatedly arguing that anything in the prior art that is capable of quote unquote capable of performing this function therefore meets the element that's not correct we have argued both to the board and now to this court that the mobile unit in this element must be as a structural matter must be configured to perform the function of transferring the information using this particular protocol to both of these net networks both of these wireless networks and if the claim if there were a mobile unit that was not so configured it would not meet this limitation so when it's properly interpreted to include this limitation as i indicated all the previous the board itself in the previous ip ours and the previous examiners all concluded that this element distinguished over all the prior art including for of the clinton struction issue that we believe the board simply failed to address and it's gotten wrong is when i say fail to address they failed to address it explicitly and provide any justification for why they are reading the claim this way is that this element requires that the mobile unit be configured to transfer information again i'm paraphrasing between these two wireless networks the wireless networks of the satellite communication subsystem and the wireless lan as such the claim inherently requires that that be done on a wireless basis you could not the mobile unit could not connect or transfer information between two wireless networks unless it was do wirelessly this was always understood to be the case in all of the previous proceedings but here it seems to have dropped out that somehow if there were a wired connection that would satisfy it well again yes in some of the prior art there are structural similarities with wired connections in which for example t c p ip is used but that doesn't show a wireless connection and end to end wireless connection bridging the two wireless networks  internet fire brand which i understand might disagree with that assertion as a matter of fact i did salmon or i'm having a hard time understanding your position that the declines were construed writing thank you for asking that question your honor at last me to clarify that what i what i am arguing what we are arguing is that it is the wireless connection on both sides that would need to be shown in the prior art art as you mention normal being one that does show a wireless lan we did not invent wireless lenses certainly it's in the prior art but what we're arguing is that this function that's required of the mobile unit has to be done wireless y on both ends and if the prior art doesn't show that it doesn't contain it it doesn't disclose this element the the since you raise the normal oil reference the problem from our perspective about normal oil is that the same protocol in this desegregation to the rd issue that i want to raise which is that this element requires that the same protocol that even that packet switching protocol has to be used in the transfer of information between both sides of the network so between the mobile unit and the satellite system and between the mobile unit and the wireless lan has to use the internet packet switching protocol the same thing that packet switching protocol to transfer information this  hub system that converts the protocol from what it is on one side to what it needs to be on the other side and then back again our claim does not require any protocol conversion this is a key distinction or really all the  inventiveness point of view non obviousness point of view is that this allows that the fact that and even that packet switching protocol is being used the same protocol on both sides allows users airplanes and had internet access or boats or trains maybe not nowadays because of restrictions but in normal times we ride all of these vehicles and we are able to get on to the internet and and they would not facilitate the use of this protocol which makes seamless communication over the internet while traveling in a vehicle possible do you also contend that do that does not disc a circus which network or more relevant to do to another reference is an a t m network in an a t m network is a dedicated transmission path for the transmission of packets that's not how the internet works so that would not protocol ether net packet switching protocol is not in the prior are apparently that's his main concern and is also the way the term was construal st of all i just like to point out we pointed out this  brief that the interpretation of that phrase packet switching protocol was there was a proposed construction provided by advanced media in their brief to the board at page appendix four hundred and forty and if i can just read you connection was transmission medium in which data to be transmitted is divided into formatted packets for individual transmission and subsequent reassembly at the attended destination this gives meaning to all of the words in the phrase answer what you'll find is the examiner follow that exact interpretation of that that was proposed by poland so there is a dispute over how to construe that phrase and when you read that phrase what you find is the prior art  back for example one of the the anticipatory reference that we're focused on here indeed shows a wireless network it does show wireless connections between a satellite between a mobile unit and between a local area network all  adaptable so they can communicate with various different networks and they specifically disclose the use of protocol converters to help them achieve that accordingly with the examiner did was he looked at that disclosure and looked at the definition of  protocols the claim language that was provided by the town and the examiner found yes we back has everything disclosed except for the express mention of the use of this particular type of protocol packet switching protocol from the examiner  he found the prior was capable of using that protocol as one of the various protocols that we back talks about that would be sufficient to therefore qualify as an anticipatory reference but the examiner went further and said even if that's not good enough it would have been obvious and that's where the secondary references come in like and normal i believe just stole asked about which does mention packet switching protocols but it doesn't mention  packet switching protocols but then the examiner went further and he pointed to the normal reference and if you look at the normal reference you'll see citations there and i can provide them here if you want me to but there are briefs that specifically  consistency of communications between very networks shows all the features of the claim except it doesn't expressly mention a known protocol that was known at the time the examiners finding it would've been capable to use a know protocol because it talks about using protocols and it talks about using protocol converters and even if it weren't true that even if you didn't buy that finding and didn't accept that the examiner went further and basically supported the fact that secondary references like duda like normal which also show wireless communication networks at the time in the same field in the same and the same field of endeavor same type of art they do use these types of protocols so i and i think we understand thanks for the question and i understand we did try to address that in our brief as well and let me take you to a few sections where we find that the examiner indeed he did articulate reasons why you would use the secondary raffi church in the secondary references with for example that we back reference and if i can take you let's see now to a few of those pages i'll try to find that for you here let's just go to make it easier i can probably take  right to our brief because we've gone through this in our brief at page forty nine of our read brief you'll see a section entitled substantial evidence supports the finding that there was motivation to combine the prior art and we go through penn well what the board does your honor and i understand that this is a problem for a pal of the board what they do is they simply point to the examiners determination so what we really have to do is take the board decision as a roadmap to just get us back into the exam or spinal action and examiners answer because that's where most of the specific findings are made and then with the board is basically doing is responding to arguments and explaining that they either were or were not persuaded and then they point to the examiner so really you're not going to find this particular or human if i recall correctly was not referring to the board the motivation to combine or i think that's correct your honor so you're not going to see much talk of it but if you but what we've done in our brief is we've gone back to the examiners answer as well as the examiners final action to point out where the examiner did indeed make motivation to combine rationales those are in the examiners papers and that's all i'm trying to find  brief just to make it easy you'll see at the end of the claim there it says communication subsystem in the wireless lan using packet switching protocol so the way the examiner read that and the way the board read that is yes you've got this network a wireless network of all these devices and it uses an ether net protocol which is simply a communication protocol remember different protocols can be used on the same network at all the protocol is really the way the data is processed so the data can communicate with another network that you're trying to reach so these we view the agency views and the board examiner both of those as really functional language or statements of intended use so that's not ignoring the language it's just treating it as functional language was a little different than a structural component so i don't think that the office ignored the language they recognize that there indeed was functional language in the claim and the examiner analysis follows that and if you go through the exams analysis you'll see that the examiner doesn't find prior art references and find rationales why the claimed use would have been used on the prior art networks or it's either disclosed and if it's not expressly disclosed it would have been obvious to be there or it's either that or it's capable of being used that way this is basically the examiners analysis with all of these features we would disagree that the examiner ignored the language  treated as functional language that's all proceedings and there were prior proceedings where on a related patent called the seven for patent was brought up and in that seventy four patent indeed there was a petition for an i p o and i believe they brought this up in their brief in a petition for the that was denied it was not instituted based on the i believe the cooler reference however we point out in our brief that the board actually dealt with that at the hearing and clarify that point  the board never said this cooper reference didn't have these features the board simply said that that pit titian wasn't sufficient so they denied institution so that's one example of a prior proceeding where appellant has raised where in their view a particular reference that i p r was denied therefore we could never ever look at that reference here in this case we don't agree with that we think the issues were different the board pointed out that the reason for the denial was not a statement about the reference or just they felt the petition was inadequate furthermore the issues here aren't quite the same we have different combinations of references with different teachings that are being referred to so we don't think we're filing by any of those prior proceedings that that doesn't mean the agency doesn't strive for consistency i think they do i guess that's all i was really trying to get straight right the blueberry talks about binding and that seems to me that ordinarily when you actually map on to this in particular because the one being supposedly bound is the decision maker as opposed to some adversary we wouldn't we would have been a quote party to the case like an adversarial proceeding furthermore issues would have been fully and fairly litigated which is some of the requirements for a stop or some type of issue preclusion to apply none of that occurred here so i don't i don't i don't see how this case really is independent of those cases as it is the way we see it and there are findings here and we believe there's substantial evidence here and we've done our best to provide a road map to point you to the evidence in the record that supports the findings by the examiner in the board and accordingly  not invent those that's not the issue the issue is the combination of using of having a mobile unit that uses such protocols to transfer information between these two wireless networks the same protocol on both sides with out having to convert as in the present the read back where normal references another prior art whether that application is not obvious even in all the prior proceedings when that element was given full patentable weight as a structural limitation and gets back to the factory or the delivery place he can then the suitcase transmits messages to the walk to the lan in the factory that land values t c p ip but no where else and read back is that using the wireless portion everything including the read back reference and again i point out even now during tomorrow's comments he's still arguing that if the prior art shows that something is capable of carrying those protocols