imo the admission of alexander ryan trey's aeacus member of the bar as good standing with the highest courts of texas and the district of columbia i have knowledge of his credentials and i'm sad it's why that he possesses the necessary qualifications granted once more ok and then finally i move the admission of jimmy jay's wearing who's a member of the bar and is in good standing with the highest court of massachusetts i have knowledge of his credentials and satisfy that he possesses the necessary qualifications and sleep hit for the circuit granted so the four of you should take the to the bar and then again thank you for all your actual work to adopt as well and on the merits of that the board's instruction is wrong for what any of several nights i'm not really seeing that there's any clear difference between that and what the board and the board explained that there was  board alternately understood its construction the board understood that selectively electrically coupling can be accomplished by simply sending a signal to a memory device to activate or deactivate that memory device and we consistently at the board challenge that interpretation and told the board that so actively electrically coupling cannot be accomplished when you have a memory device that was permanently electrically connected to other parts of your computer system the board in adopting its construction got it wrong because the board focused on different for example the board focused on selecting between components that was the first part of the board's instruction but the claiming which doesn't say anything about selecting components indeed the claiming which already tells you the relevant components the single instance of selectively electric occurs between a memory device state a signal line and a common signal line those are the relevant components and the circuit isn't selecting between those components the circuit is electrically coupling those components the board also got it wrong because the but would i be right in understanding your position that that the difference between what the board get and what you're doing is something like you think that the act of coupling is creating a pass along which certain things can happen like transmitting signals or transmitting power and the board took the view that it's not creating the path but it's actually the transmission over a path i think that's mostly right just trying to with the carry out that the word path can be a little bit you can have electrical coupling even if there isn't necessarily current transfer a wire but that's right and watchable coupling is about creating the electrical connection through which signals might be transmitted but the board got it wrong because the board focused on that end result of transmitting but an electrical connection exists even if nothing is ever transmit and you know that because that's not only the way that claims use the language of coupling but that's what the specification shows at columns six and seven o connected you cannot selectively electrically couple them because you already have a connection there's always a connection that's what the board thought that was enough if i'm simply at the end of those lines you have these memory devices and i simply say this memory device you turn to four signal lines coming in there's a control line and then the multiplexor will electrically couple one of those four signal and say to the output that's one example and when one would not call that multiplex or a switch i don't know that there's anything in the record either way whether a person is going are we think of that as a switch but part of the problem here is that the word switches and there's no construction it's been it's a loosely defined term but that but the core concept is about to how they're supposed to understand your position and if you didn't tell them that you're talking about a switch or a multiplex or something like that what the eve seemed to have given them a somewhat vague cla may again there hasn't been a lot of development on this judge toronto and so to the extent that were in issue the other side that were important it was their burden to focus on that a buffer could be one way to isolate things but it but again here the when there's when there is no selective electric coupling the system will always be exposed to loads of both memory device that was ok with the prior art because the computer system knew how many memory devices to expect on the market be computer system was designed to handle say eight memory devices on so if all of the devices are are being coupled the system can handle that load but our invention was about doubling or quadruple the number of memory devices on a module beyond what the system was designed to handle and if you  the specific way that the claims detail the claims here are very specific there has to be electric selective electric coupling between the device data signaling in a common signal and there are switches inclined we don't dispute that but look at what the switch is doing fine that's a fifth of the way through volume to get there so this this is showing one embodiment in fine but if you read the description at a place well yes there are switches here but if you look at what how the switches  configured the switches are configured to couple or decouple an entire memory module that block that says memory on the right that's an entire memory module that's not an individual memory device and that's not what our claims require and it about i'd have to look i didn't see that in the red brief judge dyke but we also have expert testimony saying the same and it's twenty two or twenty four ninety and i agree that this is complicated stuff which is why this issue of whether klein would disclose under our construction isn't properly before the court right the board made all of its findings based on its construction and it consistently rejected our expert testimony is based on our construction and not the board's so to the extent that there is factual shows it shows which is being built into the memory devices themselves that's a that's it not consistent with our claims for for two reasons one this has to be the circuit that selectively electrically couples in the claims are in a way that correct but that the transfer gates basically turn them on and off individually as opposed to simply making a disconnect between the whole group of them on the still try to see whether it comes out the same way if we can't figure out that it comes out the same way then should we send  depends on how you view the construction start if you view the board's construction as your friend then the board's construction concentrates on selecting the memory device not electrical the additional purpose at least from their arguments and their patents discussion of of reducing the load and things like that where as if the line has always electrically connected but you just used the at fifteen sixteen where is that testimony to the contrary by your expert testimony that we looked at her earlier didn't seem to contradict it i think it does contradict it just state because again that testimony that was just presented here went twenty one twenty two twenty one module itself to the extent to control and control devices and therefore it's not shutting off the power from the controller wobble which is where you're shutting off the power i think maybe slightly differently from that judges it's not necessarily about where the switches are located or even what they're connected to you but it's about whether the switch is selectively couple a signaling from the memory device to a common signal line and the reason that matters  to that common sick ally the common see the light is still there or is all even if klein has switches connected to individual memory devices i think that's the only part of what you said that it i'm not an appendix thirty two that the page that my counsel on the other side focused on the very next page appendix thirty three the board discredits our expert for relying on our construction and not the board's these are issues that the board should reach in the first instance there are