three independent claim the pattern this issue at issue here today is shown on the visual aid that we've provided and these claims have been examined and price examined already in yes certainly your honor our position is that the japanese reference is not a handheld device it doesn't provide that it doesn't provide that it is  it not being a handheld device it being a stationary vice device much like a number keypad that you'd put on a desktop it would be held it wouldn't be it's not a remote control it's tethered to the computer itself as nine hundred eighty two it's before the mouse and slack whatever your discussion here is really focusing on and the japanese reference south is supposed to flooring in view of the japanese reference right because the things that you're pointing out that are lacking in japanese six thirty four are the very things that foreign to provide right the handheld that farm switch yes your honor the floor in reference is limited itself but the the it is true that we are focusing on the fact that this particular mouse device are actually not masked by keypad device and j p because at one point the j p six thirty four is referenced as a handheld device by the acting solicitor but in reality it is well let's let a so we completely agree with you and claim construction and i've got some other questions about that later but assume we'd completely agree with you on your claim construction arguments you still have these two devices one of which is admittedly not hand held the other of which is so one contains the how it like tronics set up that ultimately you put into your hand help device the other is the handheld device with the objective in disha and you're a comic relief so if you're just saying there wouldn't be a motivation to combine because of us old technology certainly it is old technology it's a keypad it's not something that why would we want to marry one of ordinary scummy art and then motivated to you know started with forehand and modify flooring to provide smoother movement by using our referring to the teaching of j p six thirty four i just think that's hindsight reasoning i mean if you're looking at our client specification and claims and then you're looking back at something that you know the first examiner never reviewed and never considered and several although it is an annular button with a central button it's something that's like a touch by the finger it's really really in some way it's perhaps replace the number keypad where you buy previously touched it to the for the six and eight to issue is that i don't want to waive my rights my client's rights with respect to possibly some sort term extension based on various delay at the patent office and on appeals but yet during the briefing of this pill dates but so there's no actual extra extant term extension calculation on the face of the patent stuff but it's certainly set it's certainly still twenty years from the filing date it made based on faulty claim construction then it would be reversed on those grounds it wouldn't you can't apply a deferential standard to anticipation or obviousness if the underlying to combine it with with flora and and the other is that somehow it teaches a way i don't i don't see any other argument you don't define a level of skill in the art you don't refer to the level of skill  you don't talk about why there wouldn't be any motivation to combine i just see those two singular arguments is that correct that is what we argued yes there are there are obviously we publication as being prior then that also suggests that there is no motivation to combine just the sheer numbers of examinations prior to this one ok court i'd like to just make a couple points i'm happy to talk about the clay construction of the anticipation rejections but there are six other objections that are obvious and suggestions that do not involve the japanese as the primary reference so they don't raise the same issues of  inside earlier but in the most recent reexamination their language was added about a cover plate and i think if you look at the reexamination requests it's clear that the requestor thought floor not a not so hypothetical hypothetical wes what if i think that the claim construction is that the board employed were ridiculous and that there was nothing reasonable about the thousand be r i constructions where does that that if that's what well you can conclude and they should be a narrower it should be in our narrower construction for example something that looks like them a control that is all supplied by the other references there cited now by j p six that the j p sixty four might also disclose at times which but at the end the day we don't need that because with with the obvious rejections this is for actions that are not over the j p sixty four low because those rejections all have remote think that's i think that i don't know if there's inherently a motivation can buy it's really does fall within the framework of care sorry it's as if there's a limited number of problems and there will be a number of solutions to a problem that certainly suggest that it might be obvious what's thirty four reference provides both handheld and thumb actuated at the same time i'm not sure i see how that's physically possible it says that it has to be let's assume the kind research is cracked again it says capable of being held by the ha capable of being actuated by the thumb i don't think my hand could both hold it and actually my phone so let me let me make two points the first is that with respect to j p sixty four it's only claim one and that claim is and don't they have pretty much the same meaning well i actually don't think that's what the board said the board the board did say cable but what they more specifically said it was that was that specific structure discussed falls within the scope of it not minutes thank you your honor i went to mr clarify a few points the first point is i certainly the adjective forms of the thumb switch and the hand held device are more contrary not less concrete in my opinion than the adapted fortune of the of this claim limitation that seventeen has hand held would be for it to be any broader then claim one that has to be adapted to be held by the human hand they both sub holding it in your hand don that's the whole point of this and you know that the clarification or the correction i wanted to make another way back to the desk is that we i cited the tie for typing touch k several times at a point reading that case in preparation for today i think that the i'd rather cited the aspects i wear case that talks equally about or better actually about an actual claim construction adapted to and  connotation and here this resignation is just is very clear this is to be helped by the hand if we if we agree with your claim constructions and say we will just do would we have to remain and for the board to reconsider its obviousness determination in light of your claim constructions or could we simply dopped your claim constructions and conclude and look at whether or not the obviousness rejection is supportable under that standard which should decision isn't all that clear did it throws j p six three four into everything it talks about it being the principle patent from which other things are added to it rather than to say florida is the principle to