does talk about relative currency but then it says that instead of saying that it supports a different view of its construction it says that a specification does distinguishes rather than equates being online and being or seems to me like we're talking past each other which is what the priests in this case do you are continuing to press what it seems to me the argument was and step that whether what is done at the time of the query and what they said i mean they talked about registration even if you check registration in some periodical fashion after the initial registration that's not the same thing is making that query at the time when the computer is connected at that moment and that seems to me what submit was construing we may the end of the day agree or disagree with that that's the precedent that binds us so i mean registration is something different even if registration is checked even if you people have expressed it found that the winds and net bios prior keeps the mapping of names to ip addresses relatively current by tracking which users are still connected to the net network and you cite me to ninety four after the time of registration not by relying on registration alone by technologies that continue to track online status after registration it says wins discloses that once a computer is registered with the windsurfer which is what's going on so in other words what they're saying here is that yes it could be right at some points in time that it's online but but this registration system as  majority said in our prior opinions is not enough because the only thing that's claimed is determining whether they're active in online at that moment it's our position rather that the pirate already not require hundred percent  majority was the suggestion that we haven't we're not saying anything with regard to written description or enablement right has that ever been at issue i mean there's so many i p r is going on and obviously the i p r's aren't covering that is the consistently that is connected means it's connected at times various means and that that there could there is no infringement if they if it's not accurate all the time what we have said consistently or limited that gap between actual and recorded so you think that judge bag was wrong in his dissent when he said that the majority opinion required absolute accuracy i think the suspect that this is what i think a judge take my answer that is that judge date didn't get it right what judge date the cent positive was well it requires us one hundred percent you know it doesn't require this one hundred percent actually is enough that i say i spoke to john five minutes ago so he must be at home in other words doesn't inference alone satisfy the reliability of the system no it doesn't if you would add it to this hypothetical what the pattern actually calls for in the clean requires that hey i just spoke to john five minutes ago and i told him if for any reason he's going to go off line or turn it off just let me know and the majority of the opinion actually discussed specification to show and demonstrate that it's not in any way in discord with the opinion i mean if they refer you to concepts and say listen what's happening is we have to know very good job on these things but the three things quickly the council say that they agree that registration alone is enough and taking them that's clearly not true that it's never been their position the simple reality is they must continue to argue their registration and because without it they lose there's no better example of that page twenty one of their reply brief or footnote three where they raise what they believe the proper hypothetical to understand why the prior invalidates the claims to say that there is a person that moves to a city you and i'm going to use some of your prior statements against you here on this in this question so you can tell me why i shouldn't or why it's wrong to try but so the board said that wins and i also don't disclose that is connected to  but they never actually address whether or not what wins a net do disclose might otherwise lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to the point of understanding how to do the painting or all those ment because one of an ordinary skill in the art would understand exactly how to do it so i'm saying on an obviousness analysis if one aboard near skill in the art would understand exactly how to get from tracking register whether they've registered and are on line in the first instance and continually pinging to make sure they're still on the line if that's the case why wouldn't that be obvious i don't think that's obvious you're right i think that the thing that's actually before us though is whether or not this system the board are considering the prior systems whether or not they actually attempt to make the determination required by the queen's and they don't it's not a question that they attempted they just don't deal with a level of accuracy of some kind where they really do it generally or sometimes they don't do of prior art out there that did it met this limitation now we can understand since the other side was pressing on the board agreed with them the claim construction that didn't require that they wouldn't have introduced it now i understand the way things  that came out the board allowed additional briefings but at that time your friend would have been precluded from adding any additional art intuit as a petitioner kept bringing that into the display to show that what hypothetically arguing that if you took the piece of prior art that was before the board and you just added something else that was also in the prior art you have the whole invention and or say i'm saying that that's the hypothetical why isn't there a problem with how this case went down what judge david was referring to shows of the parties active in the mind but it's not meant to show that the other necessary element which is we tracked on that status with this claim and you're required to show that you're able to determine our land status at the time of the query  says that you know the specification teaches things like of main message unflagging and things like that but that was something that was left for a one word merry skill we are to design the issue is that the claim plainly on its face  connected it requires that the system to determine the on line status of the process at the time that query is sent us let me let me take you back to the question i asked you about currently running and being online the reason i asked it would not be a reasonable construction just find the limitation of satisfied with something that only asked for registration information regardless of its accuracy you have to understand the context of that we need when they have the submit appeal in th what they said is that the proper construction of the claim is if this is connected means it's connected the time of the query and for whatever might satisfy that going forward it cannot be the only thing that these prior systems do in other words t limitation this type of thing cannot do that and that your arrival as dispositive of the issue you have here before you and that's why i think knowing that they've tried to construct this argument that somehow the boarding drafted a limitation of our invitation it simply specifically asked whether straight paths have you now quoting the use of the database must always be accurate and that's the difference between the past and patented invention and the prior are correct and straight have responded network and to track when the process disconnects from the computer network that is exactly exactly on what the board found that the prior art does in this case the court amps straight camp what some errors it only has to be designed to be accurate this shifting accuracy standard is absolutely crucial rather straight have is not permitted to avoid the prior art by arguing for perfect accuracy before the board and then closed and it says what happens when