the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit is now open and in session god save the united states and this honorable r and on each ground there was a critical issue yet for each gro teach is the element that if you haven't we said repeatedly that claim construction that are not material not outcome determinative simply needn't be issues simply needn't be resolved material issue for this st ground and your honor mentioned mentioned whether the board had actually applied or construction the board did not apply either side construction it never says in its final written decision that it's going to go through an analysis under either side construction we recognize that when the board or the district court does that that is one way to sidestep an issue but here the board did not apply either side construction and i would specifically point out that while there was a dispute between the parties on the full meaning of the term both sides agreed that the clock signal requires synchronization our definition came in full from the i dictionary and the patent itself but apple removed the word periodic but regardless both sides were in agreement the synchronization was required and in the board patentability analysis and the court can find that  through twenty five dollars there is no finding much less any analysis as to whether the sado reference actually discloses or renders obvious synchronization the only mentioned there is the board your blue brief raise the issue and make a showing that under your constructions saito does not make the  substantial evidence for saito meet i think your honor is all bundled up with this threshold failure of the board to give the term and meaning under the standard two step process for evaluating a challenge to a patent you st have to understand what the scope is of the that are being challenged and that was critical here because clock signal as the board recognized that the recognized as the oral hearing that this ground was dependent on the claim construction issue it was the only just  doesn't disclose clock signal so it brings us back to the initial point that we need to understand what the scope of clock signal is the nd is that while the eye tripoli dictionary does include additional terms like clock signal it doesn't to say those disclosure of a clocked static type address decoder which i took it took to be the basis for the board saying it doesn't really matter whether there's a difference between clock signal and timing signal because saito discloses a clock which is the basis for your own construction and so you under your construction the element is found in say the yes let me address that because as best we can read the decision that's what the board was relying on for purportedly finding this issue but again it still leaves the predicate question of what  decoder and there's different quotes that are in the board's decision you think the board needs to interpret that thirty me what do you think what do you think they is that apple itself throughout its brief i think you mentioned an assertion in apple's brief repeatedly starting from the statement of the issues apple recognizes that support did not construe the term and we're really left with the decision that we can't really that either one teaches to claim element yes your honor we accept that principle but that is not what happened here in the board decision cannot be read that way because both sides did agree that synchronization decision as apple concedes rested only on the sought alone it departed from the ground in the petition and understaffed institute and this court case law understaffed it it's important to follow the a i a restrictions on the mind is that there remains a home mission in the board's discussion if we were thinking of the board's discussion as status combined teachings all of those all that evidence the patent the declaration in the dictionary is substantial evidence supporting the court fight the board's finding and the board did more than enough analysis under the a p a for this on this idea that we really shouldn't believe saito when it says that it can work in a clock system the board correctly discounted the argument that board found that they are at least a problem and the dictionary self says that although the same exact words are not used but the board based on the dictionaries disclosure finds of their people and we agree that they are s issue claims three was six were targeted to one of the option b and the entire theory was based on the fact that the primary reference didn't have the b option so they went to another reference the board switch gears entirely and said we don't care about the auction you can because we don't really have any meaningful way to test whether the board found something in the prior art or not because it hasn't construed the term and under this court's decision injector and c s r vs school candy those are directly on point in both of those the party was a threshold legal error so it's necessarily bound up with the board's patentability findings the nd point i would like to make is that the board did not reject either site construction or  construe the term the board appendix fourteen says this was the pivotal issue and yet it that it did not conduct a dual analysis under both construction it did not give a construction it simply looked at clock signal clock signal we are really left with an incomplete and unsupported decision and under get better and c s r versa school can be home and housewares the board st needs to adopt a construction in order to actually carry argument in this particular case