order the term algorithm itself doesn't require a logical relationship well i would say that they must be performed in order so there is a logical relationship that the  performed in a step by step procedure to solve for a problem or accomplish some sort of and so yes they must be performed and one would fancy that would understand that the say that there has to be a logical relationship but the meaning of algorithm only requires that they could be performed in order to write what they are going to order but we also are saying that they are conditioned upon each other that one must follow the other are you saying time so indeed under their construction it still may not have happened you know here we're saying that not only is a logically correlated but it's conditioned the execution of the command from step one and as that is done the sleep commands instructions densely command are executed or i don't know i don't understand the board to be saying that you could have the sleep command take place before the motion command is executed are you suggesting that no i'm not suggesting that before certainly not i'm just saying that the instruction to send this leak c command from step one it must then go into sleep commands i mean that that's the conditional relationship if if we don't follow that condition where you are you asking us to import the word immediately  meaning that the returning motion that the the invention is seeking to block would otherwise be assessed and commands would be issued there on the sleep command has to issue after the negates that entire point of the invention absolutely yes your honor what so what you're saying is that after want to be construed to mean mediately yes your honor and again there's nothing relationship between these two meaning the time sent then the execution to send the sleep command followed because the executing of the command from step one there is no intervening time it is conditioned upon the t but it doesn't dictate whether that's cool or has some leader going right but when you when you look into this when you read the specification and the purpose of the invention is specifically to ignore returning motion any sort of time delay in there again undefined time delay is not even described in the specifications that would allow returning motion to not be ignored i mean would it would it would go completely against the purpose of the invention that makes sense but what it seems to turn on is not whether it's temporal or logical in your view but on whether the thing has to happen immediately or move or soon thereafter and what i'm asking you didn't tell the board that their construction had to me immediately well we know we said we said it empty temporal construction doesn't necessarily mean that it can be forever a temporal construction could mean temporarily but immediately or temporarily or soon in you know any sort of you know time gap between step one if that too is going to allow that returning motion to come in and frankly corrupt the system so fine but it doesn't depend on whether it's a logical relationship or a temporal ation ship can the construction you're urging is that it should be immediate but as i understand it you didn't argue that to the board you said and instead that it couldn't be temporal and had to be logical whatever that means well it's it's temple temporal logical because it's an algorithm temporal because it happened after but it's also conditioned upon one and again it's an algorithm that you know there is no space to make a decision otherwise you know the it's a stepwise function write it step one happens and step two happens as a response to step one about the length of time after the command is executed this goes to judge guy question about whether the presiding judge is question about whether you raise this amount of time the issue before the the specification and is a reasonable interpretation based on both the claims and the specification but wouldn't it completely negate the whole point of the invention we don't believe that would your honor  to do and its in its briefing its focus on really one sentence in a specification which states that the forces caused by returning motion must be ignored but there's a there's a few issues with that argument as an initial matter as i'm totally confused as judge o'malley points out this invention even if you regard it as a temporal limitation suggests that the sleep period has to happen soon thereafter it can't be a matter of days or weeks that makes no sense in terms of the invention so even if you view it as a temporal limitation there has to be some notion in the tempora limitation that it's happening pretty soon thereafter and what i was trying to get out with mr beam is whether that construction which seems to make some sense was one that kinetic the board to make i mean do you agree that that is a temporal imitation there has to be some short period of time that we're be a very short period of time and the i don't understand how you can really dispute that the question is was was that a requirement one that was argued to the board we we had a case recently or case where the language was responsive to and then again involved with the period of time once we look at the specification to determine what the period of time was and  so here it seems to me to make sense to say everyone have a temporal limitation which is what it is you look at the specification to see how long that period compete and here it has to be pretty short and i just don't understand  to occur only after a prior motion commands that was not presented before the board i don't believe that term was even even used before the board and one point i think i'd like to make that's important here is that even if a a short period of time is required or even if it must be a medium which is what kinetic is arguing today this limitation would still be disclosed by the combination of  two and they fight to the teachings of the body itself and also to the expert testimony provided by samsung's expert so i don't think for this particular factual issue every man would be necessary i think the record is complete and the court can make a determination based on the record let me back up to the time construction so you would agree with your friend on the other side who argued to the board that the boards that your proposed construction which put no temporal limit left it wide open that it could be years even between the execution and when it when the command is adopted right there is no limitation in the board's construction it merely requires that it recur after the prior movement command is executed that's correct  one additional point i'd like to go back to and this is going back to what the purpose is is is that the begin to be the idea of ignoring motion which is the  kinetic focuses on that is one feature that's describing the specification but is not the quote additional feature of the sleep period which is that what is actually claimed and that feature all that happens is that the input other types of constructions i think it is consistent with the claims and the specification here with that your honor unless unless there are any additional questions i will get back my time  construction yes we asked that it would that the that it be can that the the steps be conditioned on one another and condition doesn't limit the time period condition that doesn't get you anywhere steps needed to be performed as you said because otherwise you'd be allowing forces caused by the returning motion to be ignored so i see that that argument was being made and that argument relates to the period of time doesn't it i'm trying to because we were arguing against what the board construed as a spell a period right where you could take in over a period of time and you that the without ignoring the without ignoring the returning