is judge chen talking here before we go any further we're talking about a waiver argument for a claim one hundred and twelve just so i'm following are we talking about the alleged waiver that you in your petition never allege that song teaches access to non sensitive a p i upon verification of digital signature that's my understanding of the the question your honor and ok and just to be clear this is under the board's construction which which requires that the access to the is being focused solely on a particular understanding of the word upon and you did not rely on gong for teaching even under the board's construction the notion of access to begins with for example and it reads quote for example song describes implementing the genesis of purity models such that any application garbus of whether the application has a verified digital signature can access some resources understanding of gong that's what you advance and now to suggest that this page says something the opposite of that i just don't follow sure your honor and just to go back to that sentence at appendix one hundred and sixty nine it is an example of what song describes and here the example we're talking about is the fact that you can have a digital signature that is successfully verified which upon occurren a disclosure that allows an application to access upon successful or a failed verification of a digital signature that that's the understanding of this sentence and what is describing with respect to discloses that limitation yes i go back into to claim once well for a moment i'd like to address the construction of of upon that was applied by the board adopted by the board just so i'm clear i don't agree with you that you preserve anything respected with respect to claim twelve that's premised on garst teaching this clean limitation under the board instruction then for signature allows access to both sensitive and non sensitive a p i well my understanding they relied on a plain meaning understanding of upon verifying right that's that's correct your honor that that does appear to be what the border light on appeal and those constructions make sense when you look at the claim language and also the specification if you go to the specification as an example appendix one hundred and four and this is column nine line twenty seven hundred and thirty one dollars states of the software application without a proper digital signature may be denied access to the a p i library exposing the sensitive a p i executed to the extent possible without access to the a p i library as one more example claim one of forty one dollars explicitly successfully verified there's simply no support for such an arrow construction in the specification or the claims especially under the p r i stand remember what i said listen for the court ok you're reserving three minutes right that's correct please start of time over again ok your honor with respect to claim one hundred and twelve dollars that was addressed in the opening argument by google you had asked a question whether the meaning of upon verifying  in fact the written description provides that there can be a global signature that when verified gives access to all signature that includes sensitive and non sensitive a p i so to that were you believe well i can't recall there's so much going on in this case as well as the other cases today but is the issue where the board suggested ok so this isn't here's you your part disagreeing with the board yes yes with the rationale your honor yes but as we have stated in our brief this is a harmless error because the board's construction based on that plane meaning of upon verifying is still correct and on top of that the written description does support the correct interpretation that even if there was an explicit determination that the signature exists when implicitly require such a determination be made since it st requires a signature in order for it for the verification  signature there can't be any verification and a pita every lies on the intrinsic record and expert testimony to reach its conclusion was that determination not supported by substantial evidence your honor there is disclosure in then of verification process but there is no express or inherent disclosure that the verification is of the developer signature so he kept cannot supports your position s itself that the access to the sensitive a t i s is based on three conditions and there's verification going on but none of them relates to verifying the digital signature itself one condition is to verify t signature because it saw no other purpose for the lynch digital signature again that is not the case of an express disclosure in fact it's an admission that there is no express disclosure and it's also not inherent because it is not necessarily so i mean if you want to wait till the next round that you're out that's fine yes it's there are several paragraphs year and i'm happy to highlight a sentence for you and more precisely and point to that but if you take a look at paragraph sixty four dollars through sixty six i know those are fairly lengthy paragraphs but it does what i had argued is summarized basically summarizes the expert opinion here i understand that but it's critical for these purposes to know exactly what you're targeting i just said i just you know i well then unless you have a pretty particular sentence ready i've got another question that two claims one in seventy wrong because the fine software application construction dispute was the only dispute you have on appeal is that right that i didn't see an argument in your blue briefs that disputed whether guards teaches that claim limitation as construed by the board if we were to agree with the board interpretation am i wrong about that let's just assume for the moment we agree with science software application the construction of that is does it matter whether we need to confront the question of whether the are there other claims that are somehow in the mix that that i'm not aware of or is it a true complete overlap asked t scenario sorry i thought i heard a question the multiple signature scenario for the global signature requires a burst global signature that's required to provide device level access and then a  i specific signature is required to provide a p i level access so we don't believe that the global signature supports the board's construction which is the same conclusion that the board reached so there's nothing in the specification or claim drugs judge i mean the the difficulty i'm having is my understanding of the word upon and the dictionary definition of the word upon and to me upon is communicating the thought that only when a certain event occurs will the another event occur that's how i understand upon i mean if if you can use the word upon in a sentence where that's not the case it would help me understand why your what i'll call a loser understanding of upon is plausible for your own and i certainly agree that the term upon and some circumstances can have that meaning ok i'm telling you i think it's always so i'm looking for a different circumstance where not sure so if you give an example if you follow a pad application upon there being a full moon that doesn't mean that you can't f it was a pod off if you look at the dictionary definition and i don't not sure if there's actually one in the record unfortunately but upon can also just mean a sequence that occurs after something when you look at the context of the pattern that's certainly the case here you're right that when a pond is used in a different context it could mean something different but the problem is the set up of the switches upon verifying the digital signature something happens upon a blue eye full moon occurring something happens it would suggest that that the thing that follows the time has to happen before the action can take place why is that not going to answer the question sure so upon here doesn't mean it takes place after but i think the it doesn't say only upon that's the missing term that would require that narrower construction and just to bring it back to the p ok your time's up counseling was the other judges have questions no none for me thank you ok you thank your page second to last sentence says wildmon teaches that developer signature three hundred and twelve may be verified lint does not teach that loading the jar files code for execution is based upon such verification so the entire limitation requires that the verification is what allows access to the sensitive a p i and that element teaching is missing from  that was left there is experts conclusion based on reviewing all the disclosure regarding the impact of you affirming find software application construction for a claims one and seventy six for the six hundred and nineteen proceeding and whether that would have overlap  like to detail that for you but as you can tell there are many overall i think issues here but there is not a perfect overlap and your honor unless you have any additional questions for me i'm happy to rely on the