which the court does undertake on a regular basis and that's the admission of new members to our or our and  making the motions and passing the gavel over to judge when to preside and we were happy to entertain your motion thank you very much judge when of the bar of the state of new york the highest court in the state of new york and also in the district of columbia not work and we expect them to continue that excellence as the new members of this bar so when they appear before us we can give more hard time and make  excellent and well worth reading and don't put us to sleep thank you very much and i move their mission to the court no dissent having been heard we are happy to grant  thank you your honor good morning may please the court before i get started i like to introduce my i miss tanya drake and mr thomas brown who have helped me in this case so maria i think we can cover most of the issues looking at claim one and claim to claim one is mr bags invention of a novel and non obvious way to make constructed fares to back it employs a specific set  which for an airline determines which in terry cities that airline publishers arbitraries for and searches a database of published fares for gate cities corresponding to the german interior sits claim one also includes a step of applying the step of applying use the results of these preprocessor steps to make the applying step more efficient that is the appliance step uses only those interior cities that are known to appear in some arbitrary for a particular airline under consideration and only considers those cities as gateways if the city is involved in some arbitrary whose interior city is a city currently being examined by the appliance this arrangement allows the claim to minimize the number retrievals of opera triremes and constructive fair use arbitraries and publish fares which error is a travel plans system gardner attempts to do his attempts to find i ching or is which a series of flights between two points and at times to retrieve not construct retrieve published and or unpublished fares to satisfy a particular travel requirement in gardiner gardiner stirrers unpublished fare we believe gardner constructed fares for the airline industry but say unpublished appears to necessarily would include some component which is a constructed route on published fares include we have in our specification describe two alternative approaches for doing that which are not covered by the scope of claim one that is the cross product which is mentioned a background which is what the inventor of the time believed i was doing and what i call the naive loop which is the first set of pseudo code in the specification which describes a technique that would literally go through about a trillion calculations assuming there were one thousand airports in the world so many of those calculations will be unnecessary because they will involve retrievals of arbitrary and constructed i'm sorry arbitrary and publish pairs that cannot construct together whereas in our situation when we go through claim one we retrieve operator years that will construct with the published fares that are involved at that point in the process so we don't have any unnecessary retri from a database or from memory of things that will not construct now in the constructor fair process there's actually two broadly speaking components of this  after what was claimed in claim one we don't mention that in our specification we do have some claims or devote to improving that aspect of the fair construction process and particularly with regard to the being viewed as a valid or invalid fare it is your position that the garden of reference does not disclose the determining step the first step in play more i need a reference  we have shown in our specification that there are at least two other ways of making unpublished fares and if that is the fact the case then it is not interiors so claim one requires hidden in the applying step using the results of the pick two previous stops those two previous stops are nowhere shown in eighty pico or gardner and i would discussion and i've read your briefs as i'm having trouble following is the procedural side of this case and perhaps you can help clarify what do you good the to because once the board decided that memo was asian was not described or suggested by the combination of references there's no real there real basis for the board to hold the claim not patentable but if you did not request re succeed in that they be my problem are you required by the rules to request reconsideration in order to get i believe that because the way the board framed the issue that where we we are entitled to those four claims and that jensen save enough however you claim to make your argument to help us understand whatever or what certainly your honor may it please the court there is substantial evidence supporting the board's finding that the claims i did issue are unbelievable because they are obvious with respect to the first  limitation processing step that is and claim one determining interior cities that appear with gateways is found in the record as this court noted gardner does include  calculation that takes place for determining an unpublished fare includes finding out what the arbitrary is and what the published fare is and that's what's taught in africa apco teaches the process of coming up with a construct that fair based upon an arbitrary and a published fare so garner relies upon the process and that takes place in app one that stores the information from abaco when it comes up with the ultimate calculation goes through at eleven forty six there it explains that in order to come up with the arbitrary information you first start with getting are an arbitrary and then you read the origin side of the arbitrary records from the arbitrary master and you also read the destination side of the arbitrary records and an arbitrary is simply an interior city and a gateway city and so as part of the pre processing it takes place in apco you necessarily will have the interior city as a part of that analysis and that is the information that gardner relies upon in determining the calculation for and i with respect to that instead which is searching for the published peer again because gardner is relying upon the processes from apco there is necessarily searching for the public sphere that apco has generated as part of the process and counsel has argued that ultimately the applying stab is not found in the references either gardner does disclose the constructed fear and it goes through the process ever lies upon the process that apple came up with which is determining the arbitrary amount and determining the published runts there is a match between the gateway city in the arbitrary and a gateway city in the published dreyer then a construct that fear can then be determined based upon the arbitrary amount and that's what apco ultimately goes through that process when it comes up with the construct of fear and that is the third element in claim one so it doesn't go through the parade of horribles that opposing counsel alleges with respect to going through each and every airline that's in the country and each and every interior city that has an airport in gateway city at that point the gateway city as pop as part of step one is that one it picks it up on page eleven forty six at the entry in the second bullet it's getting the information in the first of all but it's actually making the determination in the second and the second will involves the gateway city and the third well that involves the interior city really that's a part of the arbitrary and that's the preprocessing analysis that apco goes through that's relevant to the first element and claim and they acknowledge their error they pointed out that the examiner smeared a search and that they made a search and they could to find it however mr baggett did not and his requests for re and back it did not also west recon with respect to those claims and they clearly need good if they need to request reconsideration well with respect to seven requirement it with respect to arguments that are made in an initial appeal the board only addresses arguments that are presented to it and so and so if an argument is not made and it's in the initial appeal to the board then the board does not have to address it doesn't have to create arguments for the applicant and then address and build up a straw man just  require if they did not request reconsideration of the other two claims committee still rely on the original bill well the board will only address arguments before and if they didn't raise those arguments were rejected but for the wrong reasons but then that's where they sit apparently because mr maloney didn't ever ask for a correction that s the real one could still be taken from the original rejection by the book and flown in twenty and forty one twenty forty one that's right but it could still be appealed to us because a stand whether or not there they go back and pick up something that was an essential part of this case that's now been litigated and presumably will be decided and they don't back in the open  required them to raise any argument that they felt needed to be addressed by the board in their request for recon but they have waived all arguments for those particular with respect to those particular it's confusing me because it says this is the decision on the requests for reviewing it says one four five six seven reconsideration of the decision to affirm their rejection of claims including claim twenty and forty want i'm sorry which line are you reading from your  two lines five and six refer to claims twenty and forty one and it says the full sentence says the appellant seeks reconsideration of the decision to affirm the rejection of so now now i've i'm confused as to why we are discussing this as if claims twenty and forty one were not the subject of reconsideration only because when you look at what they ultimately a they do not in their brief then ever really quite sort this out but nevertheless i'm trying to figure out whether they have failed to raise this somewhere along the line or what happened to those only what it documents brief was not very helpful i'm sorry to say on that issue but i can understand why what resembled get arbitrary origin points from the gateway table well in my view that does not suggest that all certainly does not describe the pre processing step of claim one and particularly the fact that they are talking about plural points would in my view actually teach away from what is actually being claimed in claim one because what we're trying to claim in claim one is a way of separating arbitrary according to  and the next thing i'd like to also discussed is going back to claim to it only claim to we have a specific index women claim to are actually very broad claims but in fact they have very specific limitations and those specific lamentations were not found finally the i think i'd like to address as gardner frankly this case would have been much easier for has nothing iraqi do with producing constructed pairs constructed affairs merely involve manipulation of certain types of data structures they're defining eighty peek out and in a particular way to come up with a new da