the issue that's really before us the board didn't really consider the claims in the distinction between in the accordion and then later when they were talking about a different element of the claim they used a more narrow specification being  argument because you never said you disagreed with the board or agreed with the board all you did was make it clear that you didn't like the complicated construction that was proposed by the other side and we disagree with that characterization you know reply brief we said that our arguments were plain ordinary meaning consistent with the board's institution decision and we said that the limitations proposed by the unduly limit the claim and then we argued for plain ordinary meaning which was there for struct intellectual ventures i think it seventeen fifty one the use of in the water if i take my finger and i put it just the tip of it in the water in my fingers in the water i could dump my finger in there and be completely and in by itself doesn't tell you how much for the extent it depends on the time text doesn't i mean because if i said the chair is in the house most people are going to think that means it's actually in the house but if i said a creek is in the yard that could be of course the creek is going to be outside of the art as well as insi it can depend it certainly depends on the context of using the specification and it with respect to that expert testimony that was very limited home point of the invention to have this information or no your honor the while doctors here was aware of the second embodiment he chose not to consider it because he didn't think it was relevant to claim construction well the second by minute is exactly that it's a broadcast channel that includes the primary preamble confined within the core band but the and if they wanted to be confined within the court man that's what they said that's the public notice that they gave us that the preferred primary preamble is confined within the corps but as to the broadcast channel it is simply a part of it needs to be in the core band  cellular phones so you have to imagine that there are multiple sites or phones communicating with a base station the example that the expert use was just one of those with a new phone coming in and just looking at this core band the other phones already in communication they look at the full band with it so the transmissions of the base station which is what this claim is about has nothing to do with mobile devices it's about the base stations and what they transmit so that the transmitter is transmitting a broadcast channel to all users it's just what is that mobile device using and in this context it's this new mobile devices using just that core man to recognize ok what is the maximum band with that all the other devices are using that there's additional information transmitted with that  mean or no your honor the issue here is whether the broadcast was broadcast to all users has to be soley within the core band or if only a part of that broadcast needs to be in the core band and here it's clear made in other broadcasts and i mis understand it you're slightly misunderstanding the information that's necessary for the initial startup of a device coming into the network is placed in that narrow band but other information that all the broadcast channel is understood to be the signals are using the channels that are actually sent to all the users so if we look to the specification would include all the information sent to the user yet see that's broadcast meaning it's intended for all the users as opposed to going to a specific using the specification transmitting or broadcast channels are not written in the written specification the only disclosure here of actual broadcasting is with a spec to the full rant and with a preamble which includes all the bands  that's that's how the patentee meant to be specific when they use the word in its broad in general it can have lots of connotations you can be partially in or completely in the core band how do you respond to d the invention do you think he has a different understanding of what they're at the any part of the broadcast channel is he interpreting that just to be the essential variable i think he intentionally chose just not to look at the embodiment that literally describes what he sa information in the core band would be sent before the information in the sidebands and so it would have to be they would have it would all have to be within the core band in order to achree correctly i think that's what he was saying it but that is inconsistent with the specification so that testimony to the specification that information is also together now the first device that's new may only use the core band but the other devices that are already there will use the information in the fleet but in deep would you agree that broadcast channels can be limited i it could have been limited if they had said confined within the core band well well we'll get to that within in but but you would agree that broadcast can often be different from say every other broadcast you know that can be different kinds of broadcast you know yes you're on there can be a different kind so just so then if they're using the phrase a broadcast channel and then they say combined in the core band your next argument is within and in our different concept did isn't it true that everybody use the two interchangeably during out the entirety of these proceedings not really are in the certainly not intentionally the within the specification itself there is no disclosure of the transmission in something we're transmitting in that term is not used in discussion to discuss in the park there were certainly discussions about whether broadcast channels are in or within a core band or the narrow rebutted his factual testimony relating to the references themselves but his testimony concerning claim construction he didn't consider the claims themselves he didn't even consider this difference between confined within an inch talked about how the invention you ha yes because the new device entering the network would not be able to know how to transition to the full band with which is what's being transmitted by the base station and again these claims are not about the mobile devices as doctors eager was talking about preamble mom is a broadcast channel is it not it can be used as a part it can be transmitted in a broadcast channel the preamble itself is really the information right if you are  really the broadcast channel is not the part of this invention it's about the preambles in the preamble properties in this preamble confined within accord and the broadcast channel is just provided as a kind of a framework for describing what the base stations basis the board said well it's silent we don't know what might be out there and so found it didn't satisfy the claims specification and his reading of it but basically the point of the invention is to improve communications for mobile stations that are moving or roaming in variable band with environments and so the patent describes this to sit  signalling and control methods they use the core band so with the base stations are doing is they're putting the essential information into the ct band and non essential information in the sidebands and so as a r never explored below since simply because this issue was never raised alone that's part of the problem here and that's why the board believe that there was waiver but as sight from that there's an assumption that's being made without any expert testimony that there's only one say and again there's no evidence on this because this was never raised a low that doesn't mean that there can't be other broadcast channels that are in the sidebands it just again simply was not raised because this was an after a core band or do you agree with your friend on the other side that that there can be different types of broadcast channels yes although again there's no evidence of record just attorney argument on that point preamble that let me find the exact language here i'm sorry the core band it's used to communicate a primary preamble sufficient to enable radio operations so there's not really a tying of the primary preamble to the process cried cast channel and that broadcast channel that is in the core band can include the primary preamble they're not they're not the same thing that oh so again a primary korean bill is information whereas a broadcast channel is simply a bunch of frequen doesn't say either way that the claim is just talking about a broadcast channel in a court and the fact that a broadcast channel is in a court band does not mean that the primary preamble cannot also be within the core band erickson seems to be about the primary preamble being within the court and well again that's not an issue that's on appeal here because the only issue they were talking about was whether or not in jamba euro the broadcast channel was trance i did in the corps band and so reference hearts are disclosed to transmitting a broadcast channel in the core band and because of that there was no need to reach the many other issues with regard to the petition that was filed but again we do believe that one of the primary issues here is this claim construction challenges untimely and it's waved and certainly says that aside for a minute what about the are you member just a pretty good one i think about how the polling claim language narrower than in the core band how do you respond to that because i know the specification also uses language like confined within yes so we believe and we provided evidence to the court that with it so confined within we do not believe is any different than even with respect to when you're looking at the context of this invention and the point of the invention the whole point is that the base station is trying to information that's necessary for the mobile stations to reach the primary state that has to be in the court and that doesn't mean that there's not other information that can be transmitted elsewhere and if you look at the second site where is that  column five lines eight to eighteen that's the portion of the specification that doctors eager was looking at and really all of the experts were focused on that particular part of the specification the language  that talks about it's ok there's the primary preamble is sufficient to enable basic radio operations or at it to enable radio operations that's basically the same thing as saying the essential information it's what and the you will agree the central information preamble information has to be within the borders the question then becomes whether that feature which is this invention is shown in the  be at the early hearing what i think it was able to establish is that the prior art showed calling think signals in what they call the narrow band that they were equating with the core band but there were other signals that are sort of unnamed we don't know exactly all the types the signals but we know that there were other signals that were transmitted outside of the yama you're a narrow band that's fine but my question was if correctly that that particular question was not resolvable well imo and the question that was really going on here isn't really what the board was looking at is is is the broadcast channel that includes this essential information within the courtlandt not necessarily does essential information and often the poor van what is the particular broadcast you know that that includes this information position that there were no other signals in the broadcast channel other than the calling signals but that turned out not to be true that's what i showed to the tab at the world hearing and says that maybe ther other signals because you said a few minutes you know there's no other signals outside orbit there can be other signals outside the court band the problem is that doesn't mean that they're in the broadcast point that that there is to the extent that there are other signals those are sent by different rockers that is correct ok and in fact if you look what we talked about for example if we're looking at the full b so you know obviously the case law shows that you don't have to read every single in body went into every single claim and certainly you don't have to read it into every single claim element because even and we pointed this out as well if you look at claims eight and eighteen there is a second part so the last portion of claim eight talks about circuitry configured to transmit control and data channels using a variable band so that's the second part of the claim that's not the part of the claim  the first or more symbols and later it says the down the gravel is used at the base station to broadcast radio network information such as synchronization and cell id so these preambles keep coming so a device enters the network it receives its very first preamble it only is going to use what's in the core band because that's all it's listening to all the other devices one hundred times a second are looking at the full band with which is what's broadcast was different projects its absolute the same broadcast it just picks out the middle the plain language and specification and simply understand how to construe the claims you have an obligation to raise these issues before the word fully and present expert testimony so context here and you haven't just haven't made up your record about why the context supports your interpretation here i don't understand that your honor but the reference is actually very clear that the four thirty one patent that says the full bandwidth preamble is broadcast it that is they broadcast channel that that is what is broadcast it includes the primary preamble in the core band and includes the other aspects that are