morning are many places to be taps written decision in this case all short permissible federal agency decision making the public and this court depend on a process that adequately explains when a pan will issue and when it will not issue as this court put it a need there is a need for specificity here the result of an eight year insane process is a single sentence a rejection of apples an application in that sense teaches the public nothing and renders review by this court unnecessarily difficult and the predictable result of such a process is a mistake back in two thousand and seven lemay application tarr if graphical user interface for mobile browsing online videos the p t o now agrees there is no interface like that in the about having multiple lists it's not it is not broad claim this is nothing like these claims in cork for example nothing like this whole rationale for why they say the disputed claim limitations are invalid and when you look at it actually element six which i was a stalking about is not even referred to by the peta so to the extent of the problem your honor it's certainly not been articulated and i think when you look at the record here you want  heavily on figure three b north figure three b shows is the results of an internet search you can't push an icon on three itself and so that doesn't ma people easily browse online videos we explained that with all the menu hierarchies it was difficult to do that on a phone and so we thought really hard about the user interface to let users quickly find what they wanted and so the purpose this is very specific and the claims read in light of that purpose cannot possibly be thought of as bro she cooks figure three there's no effort to match the elements around to figure three very well but if i interpret it the court's decision as adopting the examiners findings it does seem to me that the examiner went through element by element and i mean you're actually right i would i would rather see that in the board's decision with greater precision and detail but if i read their decision which i think it's fair to do as having igs adopted the examiners position on all of this i think you'd be better served with moving on and at this point and i understand your argument on your criticism of the inadequacy of the explanation of boards particular protest opinion when you look at it does not adopt the exam as a decision what that sentence does is give a rationale it does not it does not adopt the decision below so in terms of agency process technology works but we have icons we have lists and when you push in i can get a different list that there isn't anything like that going on in figure five and since we're talking about figure five and the argument everybody agrees what the priority is here it's and we've now focused on three to five in the question is whether the elements that you the claims that you looked at you want to match up to each figure five is not really a combination question it's a i can start on the screen there's nothing like that in cook and figure five there's no configuration i can call it no matter how specific you want to get your own i would not match up to three to five and there isn't a question of combining or not it's just not here well you tried to separately appeal on a number of depending claims in your brief i'm not including four and nine in that list do you now agree that you've waived the right to separately argue these claims on that first page to prioritize the to their own preferences and you get isn't anything like that in cook what that what the p tab points to is that the retailer that is in charge of this  interface has some ability to change the ordering of the playlist that bears no resemblance to the edit icon that we were talking about so in our claim your honor we have configure icon configure icon we have a picture of the co specific apps but what we're looking at here are three specific claim elements and claim why i'm these are worded in very generic language with very nonspecific terms and each of them is found in the cup reference what three be references are search results and in that case the search for me i'd be more of a recording artist and what we have are three results and on the left we have pictures of the album covers as well as a listen button and there's other specifically for element one the list of information is displayed in the search results for example the recording artist the name of the album the release date the price as well as the album cover and the lesson  searching for the beatles which gives a different result in figure two of cook with one result and notably some of those results in cook can include video as well as audio there's been some debate about whether cook discloses video cooks broadly side cook is the only relevant reference for purpose of a subpoena all saarinen was also added as part of the combination to add the touch screen aspect and specifically using your finger as an input on a touchscreen for the interface it's not being argued to this court either there's no argument in apple's brief that it was improper to combine those two references but especially what the office is relying on the same year of argument in which case correct me if i'm wrong i don't believe that the combination of the tos disputed but in any event the examiner did articulate a motivation to combine it's in the record at a six seven secs and he said that someone would be motivated to take the touchscreen features that were taught in saron and and use them to enhance the lesson icons and media streaming that were disclosed in the cup reference and that was not disputed the board and that's really not as as i understand what's been on one of those icons and then displaying a corresponding list of information and what the examiner relied upon brick element six was the fact that you could click on one of those lesson icons and figure three b e on the left under the album covers if you click on one of those it will launch the media player that's depicted invade your pov now all agree that the examiner did not specifically say look at figure five what the examiner did w five there are just a vast collection of information that's displayed further information from that shown in figure three d just for example you also have the label for the album  have the copyright date you have reviews a track listing recommendations those are all shown in figure five now there has been some dispute by apple about what a corresponding list of information needs to be apple again going back to the i phone video app says that when you click on one of the icons what should be displayed is the same list of information that's referenced and elements want to be less that correspond are there and the broader question is yes whether they are tight and would be obvious in light of all of the references the arguments that have been posed by a palette here have to do with whether specific elements are disclosed the let me g and this is the civic quote they just gave you from columns eight nine was cited by the examiner with reference to claim twenty three which is further related to this additional information that you can receive by clicking on the  price information and specifically claim twenty three says what the additional information can be about related albums and because one place where i am struggling a little bit with the boards and in fact examiners decision is the idea that the configuration icon limitation has been now we all know what this means like this means moving icons around on your screen right like anytime i want to you know my kids i have this stupid link with their phone and they download clash of clans or some dumb game and it appears on my phone and so i want to get rid of it or move it from don't want to know my start free you know that kind of thing move an icon around that's what this is talking about an interface for configuring which icons correspond to a least some of the was a reference in clock which allows you to edit a playlist not move icons around but edit a playlist so i'm not saying from editing a playlist it wouldn't be obvious to me be able to configure icons but that's not what the board found and i can't make that finding for the first time on appeal so what do i do tell me tell me how cook discloses editing icons well so first of all there's the broad teaching of cook that you have the ability to  pointed to sarin in one particular paragraph but that's just not touching so tell me what in cook colony mind fifty to sixty which is where both the board in the examiner said this element is affirmatively disclosed not would be obvious in light of what's discl decided by the examiner we would agree that there is not a specific recitation of moving icon what there is it is a disclosure of actions the user may take that will change the appearance of the user interface that is being displayed on the screen the examiner referenced that portion of the stack and i think it's a fair reading of that to say that this discloses a general at it or configuration ability and when the examiner discuss i'm sorry claimed nine you pointed out that in the i'm a specification the that is only tied to a general icon and so we would submit that that is sufficient teaching there are also other portions of cook that could satisfy that limitation just a few get a few points john is there more if you want to rely on the examiners opinion in this case i urge everyone to look at appendix six seventy one where this examiner says and this is a quote say taishan or exemplary figure five is not in our opening brief because it's not in the peterson and it's not in the exams brief to the peter the can't we can't have a process where the arguments get flushed out so late in the day that is not the process that this court  consistently insisting that the pen office do so you know on this record eight years then we had a two year delay from briefing to argument the wasn't nothing else anybody could say about this prior that