there are three key issues in dispute for this appeal first the board adopted an unreasonably flawed interpretation for the term central monitoring device reason it's flawed is because the board did not consider evidence directed to the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art within the context of the nine zero one and four zero three patents wouldn't you say the board didn't consider it i mean the board was aware the board found it persuasive right the board did not address for example the textbook written by car that discussed what central monitoring means in the context of hospital settings and that context patent first passage is in appendix ninety four column one fifty five to fifty nine where it talks about there being a need for an approach that would allow the subject to function normally but be monitored  maintain communication as needed for abnormal or emergency situations though so this is for an outpatient basis where the human subject can still be monitored for emergency as if they're in a hospital setting the second and it doesn't say as if  hospital setting maybe even talks about a circumstance where somebody wants to live alone independently and and their loved one wants to monitor how is that hospital setting what in the context of the pattern the second passage points out  that's appendix ninety four and column three lines twenty to forty three it's talking about the present invention in that paragraph and at the end of the paragraph it talks about in the case of the human subject th it's so if you put the context of those two passages together it talks about medical assistance for emergency situations where the human subject doesn't have to be in a hospital to obtain that type of care but doesn't it also believe the term real time here though it is used to describe the invention is more loosely used what it does not require a second by second monitoring however at the very least what it requires is that the monitoring happens during a monitoring session the the problem with the construction is that it it will unreasonably broaden the meeting of meaning of central monitoring device that it covers prior art devices such as halter monitors where you don't have the data problem i'm having with your interpretation where you during a mind turn session i don't know how that differs from same real time or new explain to me what you mean by during a monitoring session if it's not monitoring on a regular basis or real in real time yes your honor so let's take the prior art holter devices they would monitor for a period of twenty four hours collect all the data and the signals then that data with the subsequently downloaded and  sent to a medical either a physician or a medical assistant and they can analyze that data later to diagnose for example arrhythmias and things like that that data you know with a holter monitor doesn't do is it does not have central monitoring during that twenty four hour session well that data is actually ability to to to trigger an alarm if there are if there are improper readings right so the prior art that's relied upon by a police here does is it puts a marker on that set of data so that later as a data is downloaded for subsequent analysis whoever's looking at that can know that there is something happened during that period of time maybe i should pay attention to that data hospital setting your honor those expressed terms are not in the claims what are and that's part of the problem in this presentation even covers monitoring of inanimate objects while in transit so how are we to read into these claims a central monitoring system and that's akin to a hospital setting that's so your honor while the specification does broaden out to inanimate objects every single one of the claims that issues here are limited to monitoring of the human subject so that's that's one response the second is it really gets to the heart of our argument when construction here is that central monitoring has a specific meaning to a person of ordinary skill in this art in the context of these patterns and even a police expert admitted during that position that yes central monitoring has this specific meaning and yes he did say in a hospital setting however if you really entirely of the line of one of four or three patterns it does give you the least tells you that with this invention is men should do is to provide that standard of care so it's in the same reminder as you or you is not that we should interpret the language as being limited to a hospital setting but that the hospital setting informs the purpose of this invention which is to allow the patient to not be in a hospital but receive the same standard of care as that that's inconsistent with the specification or unreasonably brought on line a specification which to close is on hospital environment and those are the other kinds of environments like that that's exactly argument your honor which is that if the board board's construction is that they completely ignored the evidence about what car what we're saying is that they did that they rejected extrinsic evidence that you but the problem is it's not the board construction that seems to be broad it seems that what is broad is the specification and the claims that the board did not it if you read the board's final written decision they did not touch upon the car reference hospital i c u set this is what central monitoring yes but but there's nothing in the specification that says let's assume that this is all done in a hospital setting in fact it seems to say just the opposite does not limit it to a hospital setting but what the specification says is who are providing this type of service that is a challenge to what you would get in a hospital setting but now  family may be a simple manual system or preferably it may be more complex and then you go down farther and it talks about the fact that it can be portable it can be simply something with an antenna i mean it certainly does not seem to contemplate a major central monitoring system akin to what you would see in an i c u system with this it function does is it takes the capability of a central monitoring council in hospital settings puts that into a simpler mobile device that is in relatively real time contact with the central monitoring device so that if an emergency situation happens where medical assistance i needed someone at the central monitoring station or with the device can respond to that where does it say that in the claims so in the claims and again one of the arguments we made in our briefs is for example in the preamble of claim one it talks about apparatus for remotely monitoring and assessing the status of a human subject the preamble can't must be used to inform claim with mom urgency situation what it does talk about is monitoring and assessing the status which means that there's an action being taken by the central monitoring there could be once a day it doesn't say anything that would suggest the imperative to do it with a certain frequency even if it does it once a day at least it's doing it in the during the monitoring session what it's not doing is to say now that the monitoring session is over and i've turned over all the data now some doctors can look at that data much later on and to decide whether i good morning hours never please the court i think the place to start here is the plains and as the court has pointed out there is nothing in the claims that provides for the central monitoring device to any particular action or at any particular time for a look at claim one for example and this is it a ninety eight it's an apparatus comprising a central monitoring device full stop no explanation of what it does or when and then it goes on to say as well as a portable monitoring unit and here's where the claim does provide some details it says the portable monitoring unit which is the patient side part of the device must be responsive to occurrences of events as they happen it must take that and then be able to communicate it to the central monitoring device well how do you read the the discussion  that says the invention is a real time monitoring system i think is councils conceded that it's not actually real time it's real time like i think and so there could be some real time correct it's not what the specification says it's not with certainly not what the client says it doesn't require the central monitoring units do any amount of assessing let alone during the monitoring session what self when the board interpret sellers to include a central monitoring the board seems to be equating them we're central with the word remote that i'm not sure how we get there how why is everything that's  e necessarily central i think the key here is that it's able to be separate from the patient so some device not tied to the patient itself and so it could end up it doesn't have to be about i guess i would say it could be a device the central monitoring device that is brought into the patient and leaves the patient it's not tied to the patient's location i guess is the point and that's what makes it central from a central location meaning not tied to the patient and that's what the testimony central means anything not tied to the patient yes that i mean doesn't central sort of contemplate something a little bit different than that well it also contemplates in the specification that the central monitoring device might be connected to multiple portable monitoring units and that suggests kind of a central control if you will i think of central dispatch in a taxi context it doesn't have to be any particular place it's just that it kind of  that that that's not a holter monitor that just reads one machine that is something where you contemplate that even if even if you only have one necessarily hooked up at a given point in time the capability of hooking others up and monitoring multiple devices is what central means i think it certainly could look up to multiple although if you look at the claims there are certain claims like i think a claim nine for example expressly says that the central monitoring device has multiple patient size it's the connector which indicates that it doesn't necessarily have to although a lot of the discussion in the specification is about the ability to connect to multiple but that again doesn't come back to the central point here which is what does the central monitoring device have to do and i really i didn't hear anything in the organ this morning and i haven't seen anything in the briefs that points to anything in the specification or the claims that would tell us what this central monitoring device has to do and certainly nothing that would distinguish it over sellers as the court has pointed out in sellers itself contemplates in columns eight and nine receiving data in real time melt which is what you're arguing that as long as it's remote it's by definition central and what they're saying is that there was plenty of expensive evidence that one of scaling the are going to understand central to have something more uniform where it's not simply remote but collective i think that certainly even if you accept it that wouldn't distinguish it over cellars which has the same type of architecture contemplated with multiple patients i devices that can aggregate the data in a central location they're called the remote computer system one ten i think and so it wouldn't distinguish it over  reflected as i understand it in the purge is joint claim construction i understood that the only thing that the pattern are seeking and borys during the monitoring period that's exactly right your honor there was agreement as to the basic meaning of monitoring and even of central monitoring is watching keeping track of checking on and what they attempted to add was the temporal component the during the monitoring session and now they've made a lot of arguments about central but that really wasn't the central if you will dispute the dispute is what the central monitoring unit which holes in the data asked to do and i would just point out that in the car reference i heard that several times this morning and they mentioned it in their great grief it's been four pages on it pages nine to twelve about how the board it was a glaring omission by the board and even now beagle error by the board to overlook this car reference well putting aside that that wasn't an argument they made in their blue brief that that was somehow independently an error the board's treatment of carr was exactly commensurate with how they treated it below which was hardly at all there is it in their papers at all how many where is it in the record  considered there was some discussion at the oral hearing below about carr and the board ultimately looked at their experts testimony as to car which cited car and found it not persuasive this is that page eighty nine it specifically called out the paragraph of their expert report for knowledge's which was that may seventeenth thirty four paragraph forty one the board cited to that very paragraph and said it was not persuasive and it was not persuasive because it didn't account for the intrinsic evidence and specification of the claims which nowhere limited what monitor means and it didn't account for the dictionary definition that likewise contemplated a very broad meaning of monitoring and so for those reasons the board found it not persuasive so it was but that had to do i thought that with the board rejecting the notion that that the monitoring had to be constant versus the notion that it had to be that central had to be at a more centralized location well again the central part of the term wasn't the focus so that the the primary focus was whether this had to do some active response and i think we've seen that in their papers before this court  that's what i take their principal argument to be and in that context that's what the board was saying was not persuasive about their experts testimony and about one of their dictionary definitions which was confined to that medical nursing context but as the court has noted nothing in the claims and i looked in the specification i couldn't find the hospital mentioned ones and certainly not in the claims and so there's no basis to limit the claims to that context in the language of the claims for  unless the court has other questions thank you thank you you're on our like to pick up on the point about this remote central issue joe malley you're correct that essentially a pelleas argument is that central requests to a remote and that's incorrect even though the board adopted  construction that says central monitoring device is a device that watches keeps track of or checks from a central location the board didn't apply the limitation of a central location remote is not the same thing as central we know this because in the cla we've discussed before in the preamble that there is remote assessment and monitoring right and then a separate limitation about the central monitoring device so remote and central are different words while there while a central monitoring device has the capability to remotely monitor and assess it is not the same thing it's not limited to just being remote if you focus on this question of the central location or the the fact that it should not equate to just being remote before the board  i believe that that was not a disputed issue and from the board so we had agreed with the central location and we had also partially agreed with the rest of the monitoring with the understanding that watches keeps track over checks or act active acts by the monitored by the central monitoring device rather than something that's done for subsequent analysis and so it's the deficiency in the board's analysis with respect to centr that was highlighted during the appellate process because that was never applied by the board in using its own construction in fact the board go so far as to essentially say that central monitoring device itself doesn't really have any meaning rights merely something that  portable unit is capable of communicating with so it's just a black box sitting over there and we also have a police expert saying that he didn't attribute any meaning to the central monitoring device he just said that it's just something it's just he said in his that position appendix to four three eight almost anything that i called a central monitor regardless of its function could meet that limitation of the claim there just has to be something there if you carry that logic if my claim is directed to a hammer that's