desired party that's probably the most clear articulation of that but there are some other places where inventor recognition is rough referenced appendix thirteen is one and then also appendix twelve where there's a discussion of that the device doesn't actually have to be spelled out in the specification that it was used for each particular purpose it simply has to have that functionality you're saying it's inherent but but how do you reconcile your inherently arguments with our present that sort of speci thirteen is not actually a fact finding it states instead that the one eight seven and the seven eight patents mention of the one three six application the discussion of the eight seven eight invention is consistent with the conclusion that the one three s be used as a cellular telephone so the board makes a finding that there was enough disclosure in the specification for the one three six for a person skilled than they are of anyone to understand or s another way that the inventor had possession of something that could be used as a something beautiful right that wrong and if so why isn't that sufficient so that this it's not wrong that the board and after ben said that the inner lives of a cell phone communication was there but the only thing that was disclosed was using those in or to communicate with a central health monitoring station so there is only there was only disclosure of health monitoring functions the claim is to a multipurpose device and specifically when you read the specification in context the claim is to what we would think of as a you know more advanced cell phone like a smartphone type device where you're loading software on to that device as opposed to a very specific hardware device for help monitoring so it doesn't have to it for health monitoring the invention so it's not about what's disclosed in terms of structure it's a question of what's disclosed to terms of function i mean i think it's the multi purpose device is seen as a functional thing but i think i mean even if we want to look at the structure there it doesn't there's not a structure disclosed that would indicate that the inventor right whether the inventor had possession and actually invented the claimed invention and the claimed invention is to a multipurpose device and if there's a finding that the device could make the phone call prints testimony you seem to put a different analysis not whether something is disclosed but whether the of ventre understood the use the possible use of what it has what has been misunderstanding much what his testimony was that the application had the cellular and wireless circuitry that enabled it to be used as a cellular fuck what is that me right but it doesn't mean that it was actually used in that way or that it would it was a capable of big use in that way as a cell what is what was disclosed in the spec capable of big used as a cellular phone i mean it depends on i guess what you are talking about as a cellular phone is it keep the ball of being used as a general purpose phone where you could make calls to any person that you wanted freely we don't know they're just ou the monitoring after rattus of the one thirty six application could be used to make and receive cellular from funnels for other nine hundred monitoring service so if the board found that it must have concluded that the legal test is not whether you've disclosed something that could be used but rather what that you disclosed its actual use for that purpose what more is needed mean i mean how else are you could somebody keeps talking about what the inventor knew i don't know how will you evaluate that but right now what was actually disaster what was actually disclosed the what was disclosed an application only thing that the application disc sed was that you would have this very specific monitoring to and that it would have the ability to call a health monitoring system a standard it does not disclose the ability to make it doesn't say that that would be that's what you use it for it only discloses that you would be using it for health monitoring function so that is what about the it is leading us to it and hear and see argument where the discourse where it would it could be used you just didn't state that it would be used i mean it could be used for numerous things maybe and are you saying the standard then is it could be used to do the following six things but  monitoring is not inherently a general purpose start on the claims or viral multi purpose device which has it which is you know dick dedicated to something other than health monitoring so the at the  health monitoring device of the ninety nine application would not inherently become a general purpose device well again i'm just trying to understand your position you're saying that if it could be used as a six to receive cell phone calls for other things but he didn't disclose that it was going to be used for that purpose than the disclosure is not sufficient yes i agree and that's the only way i could reconcile what the board is senate right i agree because they think that invention and series of the earth what else is needed i don't think that's what they would see when you read the ninety nine application you see that it's a dedicated health monitoring device and i mean if you look at the later two thousand and four that was a stark departure from what was just a little bit in the ninety nine application the two thousand and four after cations talks about you know the previous ones like if we look at a p p x thirty youngstown three starting out lines forty four it talks about various methods and devices for monitoring the health of the person we're known that use special hardware and here now we're harnessing a cell phone to use to put software on a cellphone which is different than the specialized help monitors and it specifically mentions the previous ninety nine application on line sixty four as you know one of the previous methods so there is a stark departure here from what the two thousand core application is just closing and claiming as opposed to what we've done  feel if we find in this case that the capability or the function indicates possession or we do but if you extend that contrary to our existing ok sure i don't think it is because it's unique to that claim construction and that limitation here because of the the functional limitation it's consistent with in reynolds and cases that deal with these kind of functional limitations so if it's not inconsistent with the ca consistent with it to find that a functional claim limitation like this adopted so if if that had not been a fact finding your i think this case would be a bit different that's correct i haven't gone through the entire analysis but certainly that was adopted by the board and it's one of the reasons why that worked just as decision should be reversed under the current standard