the court in bit of an unusual faction we have the or at or at least one of the judges on the board saying to the petitioner you have left quote it up to us to figure out how to combine  means and there's been some discussion in the briefing about claim construction were quite content with the construction that the board issued which was the plain meaning of the term inferring which was that architectural style at six fifty six and it's a sort of a summary after the description of the vendors and an invention it says the architecture quote selected by the designer this is exactly the opposite of decent finish the point that is not something that the board ever found and that's really the heart of the decision making point that i was working my way to the  their detective memory that the board and rely on that testimony write it yes and i would add to that your honor the lord had it believed that to be true presumably would have concluded the opposite that it did on four that i was talking about the judge clevenger i want to make sure i get to the forty four this is the only place in which anyone including the board says that the final written decision deals with going for at least in one state downstream circuitry would recognise the circuit a figure for as a memory it is that downstream clevenger i do want to make sure to answer the second part of your question from earlier you had said that this is the heart of the case and it is certainly the heart of the second part of the case and as i say i want to make sure to answer it so the reasoning that you laid necessary what is necessary and this is the most fundamental thing here is a matter of of administrative law or agency law is that as this court put it in cuts for if the that is what this court he said but here we don't even have that what we have is this statement in the last sentence of a fifty where the board doesn't even explain how to bridge the divide argument here i'm a fifty we're talking about the second piece which is to say whether that combination gets you to inferring the existence of a set of all memory whether you can fill this gap between ensuring and resettable memory  waiver question your honor just asked about is what i've been referring to is the a forty four point just about inferring at all and on that it's a couple of things first of all it's certainly clear that the board thought that this was an essential part of the case it talked about is that you are yes your honor there so eighty three ninety nine and a think the passage for twenty three there are multiple passages where we're talking about these issues but it  the reason that inferring was in the case that everyone understood that it was in that case that it appears all over the board decision they say so without being an issue if you didn't raise it why would the board be that is not what we're saying so the premise of the question you just asked is why it is you said to me you would the board would have to be concerned about the support of was concerned about this it's not a counter factual it's in at least five different places in the warrants decision or four different places of the board clearly understood it was here it was so much a part of the case that mentor put in this extraordinary supplemental expert report at the reply phase that was about this precise issue and so this was judged clevenger absolutely part of the argument for the reason that you say everyone knew that shan in the way you and you asked a question a moment ago if the experts said something about this and if the borat said and you phrased it i think the liberally loosely we agree with all of that then why isn't that an off the board that's exactly the point you see the board had agreed with what you are hypothesizing a moment ago with the board had agreed with everything their expert said it would have accepted that anticipation arguments it description of behavioral descriptions and of synthesis and you'll see in the second paragraph there in particular it talks about the software design tool automatically inferring the use  may please the court i'm first i think i'd like to disclose it let's address let's address the last point before we lose ok what's your answer they say that the board misunderstood the functioning here of the and that is not a mis understanding of what's doing the inferring right here the board was addressing the question of whether the particular circuit inventor's and and was a memory or not and the terms of the patent say whether something i and synthesizes memories it takes memories and processes them separately from the rest of the logic so given that what is produced in figure four is a memory and does it is inferring memories there so and i think the board which is paragraph ten of his reply declaration mr dudgeon is testifying is that a skilled under artisan would understand founders and in the teach that because the terminology for describing resettable memory was so well understood skilled outers artisan would have understood vendors and to teach recognising whether the memory had the characteristic of being resettable and he provides more detail he refers back to paragraph six at eight to four four nine where he explain occurs that a skilled utters and would understand the process to include the writing that occurs upon a reset and identifying the logic equations for the writing that occurs upon a reset so this is substantial evidence showing that they understand its method when given the appropriate behavioral description would infer a resettable number and there's no evidence to the contrary there is no evidence that they understand and would not or could not infer a resettable memory if it was given the appropriate  why they understand and would not and why the combination of andersen and an inch and would not satisfy this inferring claim limitation step a but none of those arguments were raised to the board and so they were wa and i'd also like to if there are no other questions on the waiver point i'd also like to address the the adequacy of the board's decision and i think especially given the issues that were presented the to the board that decision is  more than adequate it's more than clear at a fifty it finds mentors position persuasive and in doing so if it discusses the motivation of to combine with step work by mentor and it also expert specifically paragraphs ten to fifteen of his reply declaration in which he describes again this process for how the understanding would infer and that's it a two four five one five five and so because it clearly stated mentors position found that position persuasive and also found the supporting evidence persuasive and this decision is is clear and should be affirmed and i think moreover especially given the issues presented by synopsis to the board no further really in general as something special i mean recent memory this could be considered like a real treat dr carr it's maybe not the only type of i mean it's there's many other types of cars on the road that people are familiar with four wheel drive vehicles and they know when to memories were well known and well used well prior to the to the four twenty patent and so what chan was saying even before the four twenty that is he let's come up with a better reset or set of a memory design so somebody implementing vendors and and and this is how mr cases i would say this is this is far from the cases my my colleague cited i mean this was not power integrations where the board completely ignored the patent owner's proposed claim construction below this is not get or where the board addressed only a single limitation out of many in the claims nor is it aereo so where it's unclear what the board relied on as evidence here it's clear that the board was relying on the teachings inventors and and and sham but characteristics of a memory and one well known characteristic was whether the memory was resettable and that's the whole reason why a skilled artisan would understand vendors and to teach a method that ensures resettable memories and so i cases like huston where it's it's clear where the boards go in here and you know the issues raised by synopsis for the first time on appeal may not be fully addressed but the issues presented the border addressed and the progress sixty six in his opening declaration and so the idea that if something new synopsis had a chance to respond to mr directions reply declaration and it did not the same as inferring resettable and merely because you present someone with a resettable memory doesn't mean you know how to infer that thing my friend on the other side said that resettable memory if someone hands you a cat right you now have a cat just like chance here has handed you a resettable memory and you don't know anything about cassim just landed from outer space in firing a cat telling someone all the rules for figuring out what makes something a cat aren't self evident just because someone's handed you that cat you can say four legs and two wives but that would give you a lizard also you can say four legs and two eyes and fluffy but that might give persuasive if you look at what immediately persuades that it is a statement that is quite different and that was not mentors arguments on this point there it talks about a poster describing