i'm not going to take away the three minutes of thank you your honor i guess we asked for it to be scheduled this week so i can't complain the problems with the board's opinion is that we supplied expert testimony from distinguished leaders in the field including the nobel prize winner and the board simply sad that these selective variance month right in various years and which people made investment actually that's not what he's doing a lot of because as you can see what he's doing is he's looking at twelve monthly returns for it feels relevant here so if you can clarify that in this re exam process there's no such thing as a claim construction proceeding or a claim construction brief you just make your arguments about whether there's a prior art invalidity and in the course of those arguments you say something about what you think the claim means but you'd better do it with reasonable clarity right crypt i mean you're on a this isn't in a party is free exam where that is exactly what is done however you present a claim construction jargon to us now for the core yes in those pages yes yes we did your honor and more importantly to the extent that we can divine any kind of claim construction in appears to be contrary to for example the explicit language of the that was a claim construction argument doesn't really follow assets or at least when i'm by i b m i don't have and buying a share the s and p share wept resents whatever whatever goes into the value it doesn't really matter what it goes into the value there's a share of s of s and p so i don't understand the relevance of that it would be relevant if sort you know taught anything along the lines that judge clevenger was referring to either puts or calls for different days or following it with s a s and p february third share and what act or the idea that part of what is being covered here was a recently analysis of a single instruments you know different market values over every day or month  simultaneous analysis nor does the talk about that at the same time you're getting that it's completely extrapolated from these non leading figures that talk about multiple time periods and databases that store information multiple times and  what's your understanding of what the board decided about what the bias parameter this is sort of you know it seem to me there are three possibilities one two and the combination of one and two the scenario suddenly in this claim they have to my mind quite familiar statistical distinction between defining the sample space and taking the samples as being collapsed i think it is because the sample  defines what the way that invest back to some defines we sampling is that it is sampling from the original dataset right it's the initial selection of samples right if that's their definition in the i don't that's not that i think they keep a pretty broad right they don't necessarily say that it's they don't necessarily define it that way in their appeal brief rant and so i just think that that and that is one way of introducing  believe that we're entitled to the claims as they are presented during this appeal so the real issue doesn't really help us and it appears to be the case that they're waiting on the resolution of these two  the entire s n p japan and etc why does that which is different from what the board said why does that not indicate that eyesore cino wanted to do something that in an analysis compared to different investments two different things i might go on the market and yes i'm on it and the key thing is the words right after a very stop you between the overall as a category it's not the individual underlyin just simply saying is that to the extent that we need to we could perhaps look at a single investment that is a single asset category and and  here he says it is not relevant because for asset allocation be only need to measure the covariance between the assoc addicts so he sang to the extent that i have to do anything it's just a category i'm not looking at the individual announcements and most importantly it seems can you explain he says we're measuring covariance one of two different assets that individual stocks each asset is a category is he doing that by something other than the do anything we're trying to see how these two asset categories move to get to the extent we need to do anything that's all we're trying to do and that's how he's trying to set a program into simply a statistical term wherein you can have understood beginning to understand or misunderstand is which is i guess my problem right now is that the only analysis that he describes or we first do in the paper the actual piece of prior art is resettling i understand how you get covariance out of out of that but how do you so doesn't that suggest that he is describing the application of different that's that's why he made that comment is because i'm not trying to do what the to my man system is doing which is basically to try to provide guidance to an investor and to make sure that there is real diversification in this portfolio right just just say it seems perfectly obvious to me that when i have two stocks one always goes down when the other than