addressed the board addresses this multi passage of multi clause tactile limitation and specifically defined it as the tag file imitation and then goes through the art the prior art and never addresses that's well should be clear the board did define the word tax five the board never defined text file limitation but addressed i should say it did address the entire tag file limitation it didn't do as an actual claim construction of the t point is that when it when it would have made just determination as to whether the prior art disclosed elements of the claim it just said it disclosed a text file it ignored the rest of the limitations of the tag file limitation  are well i think they just ignored them and that and then and just found you write them it's kind of blatant they just found yet the file is disclosed but they forgot about the rest i agree that it's almost for direct transmission simply say originally the examiner actually said we know it's just that the commands are directly transmitted to the t v and the and the auxiliary devices then the board switched over and said that doesn't make any sense it would because the remote controls not the slave relay we have to make the slave related t v the problem is it's not that jim is clearly different because dr g already has is is basically just allowing all of your appliances to use a like a visual guide on the t v so you can basically everything's already there because it was it was brought in by the controlled appliances to the t v which is unique about is this basically the invention of the claim one it allows you take your cell phone and say i want to watch the super bowl and then what happens is you activate that say like the thing for the state of the listening for the super bowl and what happens is you have a you have a complete tag file that has definitions of everything you need to see to you know to find the right device say you have a samsung t v it has that in there and it also has the commands to set the t again and this is where they now if they now add in a what we call inherently funny that they never brought up before they say what we meant to say implicit in that finding is that we that everything you know you know what the state is a certain appliances that are being controlled in different locations and then just reports back to state now the only way you would ever even so that's based it alone there's no command data definition data packets together with that state data the only way you would ever even get into there is a discussion of commands and command conversion but the only way that happens is if you change locations and then you need  executable situation that's just basically much later on you might have to create commands and you might have to create the definitions of the devices so it still it still doesn't even disclose that first class and definitely doesn't  page one eighty eight of the record and that's appellant's brief argument to the board they'd only spans a few pages and as the board quoted in its decision it was addressing tag file and the two clauses after tax file definition of the control bill device and a set of commands we know the that he targeted his arguments in his brief to the board at page one hundred eighty eight to one ninety one and they were just about a few right to have the board actually find the elements of the climate prior art in part your honor because on page one sixty four of the record the examiner and over four pages set forth a strong prima facia prima facia case largely founded on the wh shows the three block elements are remote a relay and a controllable device such as a t v or d v r and the examiner said what's missing  how you store the data to have a tag file as to the particular controllable device because anyone moto did it by way of a user id and  the two word phrase tag file and the definitions of the controllable device and the set of commands that's the tag part of the claim applicant in its four page argument section to the board said that it did its job about halfway and then it iterated how the examiner and this is on page one ninety nine of the record the examiner almost quoted from our l device definition on tape one ninety nine of the record and this is where the board in its second decision picked up on this is an appeal going on here there was a prosecution for the examiner with the examiner his findings and the and this is what we're relying on to the board once the board found that the tactile part was present into prior art references and the examiner had found motivation and that's on page one sixty seven of the record the examiner had expressively said which was not contested by the applicant to the board of appeals the examiner said that one would have been motivated to use the functionality of early early because it provides an established system of accessing information improving overall operability that's on page one sixty six so again we we have to present it this way because of what was argued specifically  board and the board addressed everything that was argued to it as i said a little while ago it took two decisions for the board to really show how our going discloses the three parts of the tag file part  says more than that your honor what it says i'm on page four of the record and starting near the top around line five on page four it said we did not disregard the other two other two limitations argued and when it says here it says this is where i was going with how it relies on the examiners answer the examiner quoted from our link to vice definitions and that's found on page fifty seven of the record in our link paragraph thirty and so before the must store which is around line twenty of this key page page three of the board's rehearing decision page for the record above that the board says a lot the board says they agree with the examiner in the board's allowed to do this that the examiner worked hard and made explicit find the tag file part of the claim and there was motivation in those two references that the examiner found to combine that with the primary reference niwa moto and then applicant shows what to argue to the board for i'd like to respectfully point the court to on this page four of the record in the top part the board went to precisely the examiners two pages which made the findings i believe you're talking detailed fixing of things by the board it says to arlington must store both devices definitions for the different devices as well as commands but but it doesn't say this is where our l above that the board just said that the examiner relied expressly on arling paragraph thirty four the challenge limitations and this sentence a arlington paragraph thirty line twelve arling says right there devise conversion definitions and that is what the examiner was relying on to meet the other w on a page and then on the yes on ok this disclosure is written in paragraphs so there's a paragraph thirty on them in column two paragraph thirty going twelve lines down from that we have device conversion definitions and that's what the examiner was relying on the exam or actually quoted that on page one ninety nine the examiner talks about device definitions and earlier in the prosecution the examiner talked about arling showing in this great block quote this block quote has a lot of elements in it it gets interface specifications from this is in the middle of the block or of celery devices and those are the controllable devices so it's getting the uniqueness device to define and generate interfaces and what we have here a lot of us probably use universal remote control as a remote a really in the middle and then the really is like a hub it picks which device to go to  address the arguments made to it and the examiner set forth a full prima facie case based on the evidence of record which applicant then selected to the board if that has let me refer you to but it also says that what we have in paragraph thirty as a reference before line twelve device conversion definitions and the figures one and two are reference in this paragraph so what's going on here in this relied on substantial evidence by the board and examiner is that we've got device definitions and commands it's very clear we have a lot of commands going on question is that our link uses as has been challenge device definitions and how else would you isolate the device you wanted other than to have some type and i'm not conceding because when the board said the must at the bottom and we agree this could've been better worded above that with the board was clearly relying on was what the examiner found more so than in arlington and the board found these have filed parts to the claim in both references based on what was argued to the board and i obligations as the board thank you your honor as the board found on page fifteen of the board was relying on knocking jima paragraph fifty one and we have commands and we have controllable devices are the one afforded want to ape and we can this is keith specifications from these auxilary devices and those very key also targeted to the really targets particular controllable devices so that's all was that was needed for this broad claim which just concerned one remote control and a control device at the end and a relay in the  the definition and the commands and and that's once again at the very most is that first is that first clause of the tech by a limitation we still there's still it was never even discussed there's there there's never any discussion of this complete executable text file that executed in that second clause that's not mentioned in any of the decisions of the examiner one sixty four  prior art no finding of whether the prior art incompetent or a combination discloses the tech via limitation all of the specific elements of the text by a limitation is never discussed and then again there's no motivation to combine ever discussed in the reach areas decision and i think the public's request for complete reversal because i think it's clear from the record that there is no that that this claim is not obvious on the board is only disclosed for direct transmission but that's also incorrect so the last or last you have any other questions i think  deal with you couldn't combine that with orally because it doesn't disclose all the tax file type limitations i don't think we address it's just you know they're just display tags they're not out there they're