on pages twelve forty five to twelve forty seven own can i ask you a question about about the bias parameter and i'm probably going to be inarticulate or incorrect even in the formulation of the question so i'm going to hope that you'll help me things that might be biased parameter or might be in combination of biased gravitar one is the splitting of the overall sample space into seven scenarios and then after each scenario has been randomly sampled then a particular statistical measure has been created for each one of those some sort of weighting of the results now i understand again text why as a mathematical matter using a bias parameter in the selection of the samples from the already defined sample space is in any way different from we the temporal correlation between investments so what the pharma patent teaches is it allows you to sample multiple investments let's say on the same day and how they relate with respect to each other so to know bootstraps each investment in each scenario and when you bootstrap it you've lost the link between this investment and this other investment how they relate to each other on for example the same data so you can think of it this way it's sort of like if you imagine you had a bunch of on balls in a lottery basket if you were to pull up in on the ball for one day and that had all the values of your investments on do say two investments and you are doing research and playing on each one what mathematically is the difference between a random reset of playing so we're sitting here during the show i was still gaining was telling us we were having a disagreement between rational people who are have some skill in the art and understanding with these references jupiter so if substantial evidence is the target which  but but then it takes the results of the random sampling within each of seven different sample spaces and it does some waiting and i'm trying to understand why that doesn't amount to  biasing in the selection of the sample and it simply doesn't because when you do it the way the two nine one patent does it you can pick a down day or you can pick an up day and then you look at all the values of the investment that you have in your portfolio and you keep them together you don't bootstrap them separately when you've moved struck them separately you've lost critical information you've lost information about how these two was i guess what i have tried to describe is my understanding of the point that what's in sort teano produces certain weightings produces creation creates different sample spaces but what it absolutely does not do is bias the selection of samples from a particular sample space you've already created and that's different that's a myth did they not make that argument to the board they made that argument to the board let me let me explain to you your honor why the board made the correct well i mean why does he have to say this is my view what's because what the argument was presented to the board was a distinguishing argument over the prior art right what sampling of individual monthly samples and so they cite to this court an argument that we had made that they had criticised the law i believe you're correct about that let me let me explain sort keno versus the united one at the bottom in the two nine one patent says let's pick a sample space whatever the investment maybe s and p five hundred k index figures fifteen to seventeen have a number of different investments identified there pick the sample space from within that sample space let's use a bias parameter to affect the randomness of the recently we're going to do it one way we can do that set our bias parameter to want in that case we're only going to draw from that investment just the days th linear combination of twenty percent of this and thirty percent of that and two percent of that and get a number that comes out of that i think the confusion runner is you're going to have next step that's in with no disclosure an additional embodiment that sort of you know talks about the waiting scenario ok do you think that the board relied on the waiting as part of its reason i do not i think the board relied upon what relied upon breaking down the sample space of the twenty eight years of the us always the language selected the s and p five hundred sample space is selected first why are there not seven sample spaces those could be additional they could be considered additional sample spaces but what they also are are just like the up days and down days in th described it and i gather from the stack has to do with what samples what you're drawing in the four thousand iterations of sampling from each of the scenario monthly samples that correspond to that's an area the months when we were in a deep recession the months when we were in a real growth period months when we were in a mild recession period it breaking down that sample space into those individual scenarios and as the definition of seven sample spaces but as the process of sampling and because that distinction is actually in the in the back in the in the claim between sample space and and the selection of samples w what evidence says that the selection of samples includes the definition of the scenario just one clarification before i give you the records back to only claim one only claim one at specifically calls out selecting a sample space and then the claim your honor because that was not added until after they had submitted their declaration we don't really have evidence about how a person of ordinary skill in the art would apply a language that is now at issue to only when you are selecting individual monthly samples or individual daily samples it's not written that narrowly it just says one arm or parameter that determines that randomness in sample selection in a recent polling process that's what at any point in time in the process that sounds consistent to the part of really good judgment your in your heard yes it can you refresh my recollection of the prosecution history that led to the introduction of that language into the claims the in sample office and the examiner correctly rejected it asked that the board because that broad language in sample selection did not distinguish fourteen did not distinguish were not raised with the vote in court would be able to consider the entire record clean the record before before the office i think to the extent that that number is trying to make a disclaimer argument based on what's happening live during the re original prosecution making an amendment making an argument having that argument be interpreted later on after the list that after the patent issue and trying to understand the meaning of an amendment that was made here the process is still ongoing they made this amendment in the reexamination and they're saying to you we had it in sample selections of this claim for example on the biased grammar and we also argued to the patent office all these other things we now want you and guess what the board made a mistake as they didn't construe the claim to include all of our arguments they want you to change the claim construction adopt a new plant construction and never offer to the board and read in all these limitations from the specification limitations not supported by the claims limitations are inconsistent with the claims they want you to read all that into the claims now the cases we cited in our read brief if they wanted those of those limitations in the claims they should have amended them in the reexamination when they had the opportunity do you have anything you want to quickly say about the board's reasoning and the argument that whatever sort you know shows it does not show and allies in two or more investments in response to a single request and and our position your hon arguably analyzing two or more investments in response to a single request i'd and i know it's not even clear i mean fact i guess i will it was say it seems to me the board did not find that it did the board statistical analysis request corresponding to what pertaining to the two or more you ask so it's not just the comprising language it's the open ended a right a under the court's case law is generally understood to be open ended doesn't necessarily mean one and only one as the patent about temporal correlation and simultaneous analysis one of those limitations are in the claim none of those limitations are in the claim of the board correctly found there substantial evidence to support that war that that serial requests satisf are the reason i interrupted your opposing counsel was because you were shaking your head in denial when he was saying things and i'm sorry that's not right now i'm i'm sorry just responding to  language by itself something that says now this really means after you define your sample space and that includes the scenario definition it means the picking of a thousand i don't know what the numbers are but that the many many many samples on which you find what you're saying that what we did was we did not ask for a specific instruction per se what we did was we argued for the meaning of but i know you're on it wasn't per