brief look at what the board actually said in its purported claim destruction which can be found in the appendix of page thirteen after going to the record in deciding that wireless device means was not a means cost function transform it went on to for purposes of this decision that's wrong the term needs to be construed and regardless of how you construe that charm whether it should be construed pursuant to one twelve six as we proposed or whether you claim itself is a structure not a function that well let's let's let's run with that let's let's take a construction that's not means plus function that just has to construe the term wireless device me now not go  seem to agree that wireless devices is disclosing the role why there is well not wireless devices properly construed or are because wireless devices it doesn't exist in the back you that term needs to be construed in the context of the specification and file history and what the boards are what say in essence we're not going to consider wireless device other than in the negative and saying it's something that doesn't have two processors you still get to the same result which is wireless a wireless device asked considered in the context of this patent specification and the final history is a device that has multiple processors so why is that still first thought if you take a look at the specification and you go to column fourteen in the specification the invention here is exhibited in the figure two if you look at  phone and play it back you needed additional processing capability and so as illustrated in the affidavit submitted during the course of prosecution history by dr friesen one of the inventors here came up with a prototype that  construed and in the context of this would just looking at that do you need to have to process in order to do that yes because that's what the patents vest if you look at the specification you look at the file history first of all the term wireless device d experts here the first thing if you do a google search on wireless device you're going to come up the garage door opener and the garage door openers a wireless device but that didn't mean the construction here when our expert was asked about what does wireless device means you give a whole long list of things in including a microwave and today's refrigerators are white which devices the point is what the court did was it did not look at the specification and the file history and when you do that it's clear that wireless device has some meaning in that meaning is a multiple process so if we go back and we look at the back and forth file history part of the battle history took place over many years the examiner confronted the inventors with ro board never did that the bore never really went through that analysis because if you go through that analysis and you just start with an objective view of hey what did what is what are we talking about here you're led to figure two and you see two zero two that's a conventional cell phone and then it's got in addition it's got to all three into all four and that's a board that has an additional chip with the functionality required to implement this method that's in there and then layered on top of that is the affidavit of dr fried's and dr fruits and talks about what he did to develop this prototype he in essence and i'm  optimization normalization it was no there was no nothing out there that could do that so i had to come up with he called it an engineering solution and what he ended up doing was coming up with additional processing power in the form of an additional prototype board and the prototype in essence hooked up to a regular cell phone and then they were able to implement the method that set forth in the claim here and that's clearly part of the record and it's clearly part of what the examiner considered in allowing the because the record that discussed what that existing was is reflected in to too will and there wasn't enough so there had to be more so it can't be wrong it just it just simply  terms which it did and that is actually the construction that was adopted your it's exactly what we did here the p t o said you have to add something to this plan you have to add wireless device means wireless device means is governed by one twelve sets and whether the term wireless device means should be limited to a structure having multiple processors regardless of whether the term means sky never disputed what petition has said the m p three guy teaches sky never disputed what petition is said was the reason for combining ralf with the m p three guide the board the board result the parties dispute by deciding that the term was not governed by one twelve six and i'm happy to get into why we think that's correct but when you start here you are you are correct your honor in our petition we proposed a means plus function construction and  the other dispute that the board resolved was that the structure should not be limited there's no basis to limit it to multiple processors under either construction the multiple process argument is the only argument that sky presents for all of its proposed constructions including its twenty nine word not means plus function proposed construction for a three word term to distinguish  once the board decided that wireless device needs should not be governed by one's whole sex should not be limited to multiple processors sky was left with no argument as to why  filed we responded and i think i think the boards you know he they they realized these were not new arguments these were weak under the recent case from this court the s a s case which is had a right spec the other thing i'd like to address i think is a really important point here sky's counsel says that the that the board did not consider the file history of absolutely consider the file history and i can give us a cite for where that is the file history is impregnated with the misapplication of one twelve six and when you look at the section of the final history agree the board got it right we we in our papers did not let you look at our petition we never ever argue that a function is explicit apply the function to the claim which is contrary to law we can't rewrite the statute the examiner can't rewrite the statute applicants can't rewrite statute and certainly sky can't write sketches that you would you know scott i had sky had an opportunity here right after this site guy was instituted we had our initial conference call that the board and sky indicated that it may seek a motion to amend the claims never did that it could have filed a motion to amend after knowing that the board said this was a mean us function they could try to fix the claims i did see that it's in the record your honor so let's see so if you look at appendix five six three five teaching wireless devices i mean that's exactly the argument that we've made in our petition we never had to change although we changed course on clean shirt we never had to change course on what we're all teacher prophecies that's so that's that's exactly right your honor that that is actually that paragraph is a description of the software embodied in which the applicant is taught was not a that there is a passing reference in i think one sentence out an entire column that basically spends the rest of the time talking about hardware so that's a in essence a red herring it doesn't come and on that one twelve six piece you only interest in you only get the software you do want twelve sets and then even hardly you don't come back to boxing in tackling basics the clean as to be construed wireless device means must mean something and it can't simply mean this generic defined in a negative it can be anything as long as it doesn't have multiple processors because we overcame rough it's just this knock off if you go back to the structure is incorporated into the one twelve analysis than we did and our structure that was incorporated required two processors and the last roll doesn't make the claim up because they're going down the structure of course did not you