support of that request like to make two points one the claims are not obvious much less read upon by the side of art and to say don't teach away from the claim in  assembly box and you would tell us that is a single receiver and you would find that to be direct literal infringement no that is not the case given the fact of how the claim limitations are ripped in that the limitations are such that each of the features refers back to the same receiver now as you know in robbins there are two receivers running in parallel well even if you didn't get it that way you would say oh it infringes because you have two receivers doing this same function and yours is a functional method claim you would say every function is performed by robins and this is just a method claim i'm i'm very confused by your answer of how it would not infringe from a claim chart perspective looking at the first limitations of receive comparable or it does receive compare an alert however a step of receiving is split so the standing step takes place and the information that is received to scan takes place in one specification right no actually one of the embodiments in the specification talks about a general purpose computer which is adapted to receive what you don't have software hardware so you've got a computer in your invention doesn't that to main receiver so there is one receiver which receives a signal and provides audio or video however whatever signal it may be to the user now in order to provide that that receiver functionality that it did not have robbers it bigger and more complicated not realizing that with a digital signal which is important in this invention that you can actually reduce and make things simpler all right and so by running receivers in parallel things quickly and robins also wants to receive multiple single type so it wants to receive a radio signal but then also relay that to what's on television so it doesn't it means discriminate between signals in some instances so that's why he in his thinking space my read of it made it more complicated the claimed invention the limitations all refer back to the single receive and a  we're talking about as a single receiver we can a receiver is nothing more than something that takes a signal translated into a usable format so the downstream processing that occurs with the signal came by that receiver anything can happen to it here we have multiple signals coming in robin's which is split and actions are running in parallel to that receive at roberts doesn't robin specifically say that a data processor can be used but at the about a receiver and it describes a specific type of concatenate the code or there's much description of the receiver itself the internal workings of the receiver that was used so you're saying example three simply says it has your claim state it simply says that at those things up her at the same time but that doesn't say that the receivers doing that the claimed refers back to using the receiver to get maybe it is not as artfully worded as we were  would like but it's using the data from that single receiver to perform the functions of computing steps downstream whereas in order there's no structure in your specification for the single receiver is there other claims also require same type of language that's from robbins all of that is fine to be integrated yet you have a in your big year three a single receiver which just is an empty box three twenty right now how do we know what's in that box again why couldn't there be why couldn't the single box three twenty of your figure three be the same thing is figure a day of robin's because we did which is also a single receiver box right with a single signal coming in and of course once it's inside that box it could be the same as your box rick when you write it could be but for a description the answer to that is we describe the same thing robbins does without knowledge of problems except yours is a math that claims so if it's performing the same function that's enough when you get into describing structure you're not bound by that structure in a method claim but we're referring back to the same structure of the single receiver so the single receiver is the structure that is doing the function were and robbins for the back up robbins and how it is this going there are very similar we also take it one step further and say we're removing something something is optional there is a distinction here a component is removed and that's that actually gets into the inner it you know why wouldn't that be obvious to one of skill in the art that you could do the same function robin when he splits is signal into two you can just keep it in one single received signal why isn't that obvious to one of skill in the art it's not obvious for two reasons the first reason is robin said so he says it's computer is it your computer or your general purpose computer essentially serving the same purpose as yours no it is not because it's not receiving any thanks receiving data from the receiver which is to say that my computer in the claim is the same nothing in example three that discusses the eight scanning function of the receiver example three and four talk about how the receiver which may have integrated into it the general purpose  distinction between you and robbins that they have a computer that's not integrated in the receiver and you have a computer that is integrated in the receiver in their office and they know the thinking is that robbins requires two receivers the cited reference is in dishes patentability now we also have other advantages such as cost savings such as the board our built them precisely with this argument it said we agree with your characterization that robin's employ multiple receivers to form one homogeneous receiver system they agree with you the internal competition and so your receiver has not been disclosed however one thing on the earth could be the same as robinson and you could have literal infringement by robins of your claim if it issues meaning it's anticipated if not obvious i disagree only because of the disclosure there's never been an issue of what is claimed that the arguments been have wrong when they say it's not dispose you said that in your brief and you cited two example three yes and i don't see it it's a simple receiver there which one what part of the does not say it doesn't decide it has the word single receiver but it doesn't general purpose computer which is described in paragraph eighty three cork robin says robin sri seeding system the integration of components that robbins refers to as a main receiver an ocular receiver labeled eight o two in figure eight a corresponds to the claimed single receiver  which is the central dispute in this case robbins itself refers to that integration of those two components as a receiver and that isn't specifically in claim one at page a seven o seven and there's nothing in mr halliday's disclosure that limits the term receiver to or that would exclude that integration from the term receiver so i submit that that receiver does include that that integrated system what's the scanning function that occurs and rob in robbins and specifically referring signal and also it's where the user inputs a user code or it's it's basically a selected work like a song the auxilary receiver receives a stream from all channels extracts that id code from all of those channels sends it to the comparative and the comparative looks to find the id code of the song that the user has selected and input into the main receiver so in other words the comparative receives the selected id code from the user b of the main receiver and then you compare the songs that given vs the songs and remember that exactly and what what happens in holiday how does that  scanning stuff on holidays isn't the general purpose computer part of the single receiver or now do you understand that to be well if you look at halliday's your scuse me figure three right up the block diagram shows a receiver three twenty separate from a general come purpose computer three ten so it appears to be two components performing what the receiving system does and along those lines with respect to example three that was discussed previously example three  that's the example three doesn't talk about a receiver it talks about the general purpose computer so it's like that so i understand now that mr holiday halliday is referring to three ten the general purpose computer as a receiver rather than box three twenty which is the receiver that in mr halliday's opening riff mr halliday argues that three times the general purpose computer simply performs the function of the specifically if you look at the first full paragraph that begins the line nine it discusses the general purpose computer three ten polling the satellite stations received by the receiver at three twenty so the receiver apparently among other things that it may do that are not disclosed here receives the signal and passes it through to the general purpose computer and the polling is what corresponds to the scanning function if if the if the real problem that examiner and ultimately the board had with mr halliday's patton was that mr halliday didn't properly describe his receiver and its functions why wouldn't have been alternative bases to reject that patent application instead of saying well we're going to guess that it does what robbins does there was a one twelfth rejection a written description rejection of the drawing room when it was withdrawn exactly i think that's a good question i think that might have been a possibility but basically what the board decided to do is what this court did and c s fitness case which is that there's a term that's broad enough to cover different structures so we're going to define it as including those structures unless the specification you know excludes structure from that definition which mr halliday's written description does not it it opens the door leaves open the possibility of all of these different types of structures for the term receive the issue of that teaching away i don't i really have a hard time following the board's rationale here i mean if if if it's as if robin says that's better still or a receiver is needed how can you say that that  and the examiner relied not on the components but on the receiving system itself to the disclosure or teaching of that single receiver so that componentry of that single receiver receiving considers the receiving system of robyn's to be the teaching of the claim so they are still the word receiver and in robin's encompasses a compared or encompasses the controller all of those are part of the receiving system that's correct or are i so that to the extend and to the extent that it would contemplate a data processor that would be part of the receiving system that's correct your honor and so why would they be separately identified if they're just defined as the receiver why would the components main receiver nodular receiver be separately identified yes i think it's just a matter of terminology i mean i think you know it's unclear why those particular terms were were chosen for those components but the word receiver and robbins includes structures such as radios and t v s and a radio would have you know the erotically a component in it that does the actual receiving of this signal the wireless signal and other components that would perform the other functions of of extract codes and comparing id codes with what is stored in it and in memory but receiver has that global meaning of of the whole radio or whole television and again claim one a page if there are no other questions thank you very much mr wood helen who you have a little about a minute and  specification describes a system having and i'm using different terminology in a killer receiver and a main receiver in claim is what describes your invention it's a new method claim the method can therefore encompass any structure that performs that method step that's correct however the claim is limited to a single receiver and all the interlaced unship of all the limitations refer back to that single receiver so in  looking harsher claim a lot of that claim sixty one says receiving one or more digital satellite audio radio channels using a single mobile receiver is right then but then you go on to want to describe these other functions that are occurring and and they say that they're occurring and then there's even a place where you say that audio radio channels was you talk about the channels perceivable by or the receiver and you say where in the step of comparing information occurs while the receiver is providing audio to the user correct but there's you're not saying that the step of comparing or the is a is being done by the receiver when it's alerting