decision at page eighteen that was after the board talked about the claims that the arrangement on that one eighteen thirty and thirty four have them over the board focused on claims on and some of which that sentence is required here the board didn't construe means plus function term it needs to do so it needs to apply that construed term to the prior art but we would contend that an outright reversal is actually appropriate first because that those algorithmic steps and we argued that extensively in their response brief did not point to any evidence that would suggest that andersen or mcdonald actually disclosed all free of step let's say that the point they're making is if if we assume that a comparison has to be me they are recommending that it be made by the board in the first instance you wouldn't be proper for  to go make that fact finding in the first well your honor i knew i do know that there are several decisions this court has made in which when it finds a fair or a player and then claim construction it looks at the record it will reverse out right prime ability versus the mobile there the claim required a mounting plate that was i think it was perpendicular to the board so that could reach parallel the record was such that you corrected the claimed destruction if you looked at the record and said we're just going to reverse there's no need for a man here and we contend the record of such here because a g c is not identified any evidence and action are mcdonald and we have pointed to evidence recall that the examiner had twice allowed these claim to have been reversed by the board and i would commend the court to look at a fourteen seven fifty five to sixty in five pages of analysis the examiner goes through explains why he's adopting the algorithm and then analyzes  the references and combinations of interest and particularly the mcdonnell combination rejects the notion that the algorithmic steps are there and it's a very detailed analysis that is uncontested in the record so we have record support  go that far your honor because i believe their principal argument was there was a two step algorithm they had backed up factual arguments about whether macdonald and anderson taught all three of the steps we had a unified in the  what i'm saying is if you look at the examiner of analysis going through that record and analyzing what each t c argue there is a very clear very detailed analysis by the examiner indicating why that simply wrong and on this record it's sufficient for verbal that that's what we contend reversal suffices here well how do we know what the correct an algorithm in this package that is made them i think that comes down your honor second this proceeding as we go along for seven years we've not been getting special dispatch this court will routinely decide those sorts of claim constructions on appeal third when we say when we argue for our algorithm we submitted the testimony of an excepted argue window dr madison to use testimony on that so i think you have a very clear record here in which you can adopt our three stuff it's the other sites and then there's another algorithm running around in th alternative also disclosed i would agree with that your honor and there are two aspects to that debate first there's the aspect you just raised that you step out of rhythm proposes and second there's the point that you made your honor where the lord seemed to go you characterized that dispute you said while i pecan maintain the eight thirty patent contains such a qualifying algorithm the district court never analyze whether the claim was true there's thus no finding in the record specifically addressing whether the structure actually needed for the type of claim for claim that issue can be found now i raise that because the algorithm that the district court stated program to formulate and send messages to reactivate  is substantively very similar to what they teach t c identifies a page thirty two of their proof the cell phone determines the handover if it does unsuccessful that correlates to the district court if the hand and then two it sends a simple message to the base station to which it was originally to reactivate the link that correlates to a program to formulate and send messages to reactivate the link so this court has already looked at the essence of raised below either by any party or the board and secondly when when i look at the board's decision it seems to be suggesting well we're not and seem to be skeptical about the notion that the arrangement is even their teeth of our messages it's our contention that all of the critiques as to what our algorithm is it boils down to they're looking at fortune's of the specification and saying well that's another body and this is another body and that's another when you read it in context those are not embodiments the algorithm is plainly set out with respect to figure five that's the only figure that's disclosed where in fact the handover was unsuccessful and a leak is successfully reactivated and that requires the three steps of the  to thirty seven if that comes up i would like a little work i think  critiquing the algorithmic structure that i've become pointed out and then it returned it responded and said well wait there's other algorithmic structure that says the opposite or the provides another example and it did that twice and by doing that really well but it well for all three it said it wasn't required but it gave two sites that i'm going to read out at appendix paid sixteen and seventeen the first one was in connection with the rejection message that they were pointing to that that i'd become so there had to be a rejection message coming and in response the board said but that wasn't required for example the specification discloses an algorithm structure in which the mobile station was unable to register another base station in this case due to rejection but in some cases this is because no other base station is receiving and it citing to the patent specification one is not whether every jackson is necessary the step well irony let me rephrase that the step one is not that it has to receive a rejection step one is that has to make the determination that the handover was unsuccessful and it doesn't matter how it makes that determination agree that there is an algorithm if there is an algorithm i think in response to your question before i don't know if the board was saying we're not so sure there's not really i think the word was saying we're not so sure that an arrangement is a means must function limitation but nonetheless our job you have to get a confirmation message and they're saying the specification discloses algorithm structure in which quote if the search for a new base station is unsuccessful the mobil station really registers at its all based ation and keeps  what's not necessarily are the structure and then they're saying what is the sense that you're reading it says even assuming the patent is correct that it discloses an algorithm of reestablishing the link by getting a confirmation message they're saying the specification also algorithm structure where that's not required and so right here is where that board is explaining this is what the arrangement for reactivate in the link is you figure out that your handover failed and you reregister back to the first station all that matters is this is a mobil station claim for all of them that are issuing this appeal that let's assume for the moment that you have a debate that the board cobbled together a second so all algorithms let's also assume for the the board decided it didn't need to go there what the board did was we filed that if you turn to and it's based twenty at the decision it says right after a decision we reversed the examiners not adoption of the rejection of claims one by three seventeen nine hundred twenty two and twenty four under us zero three thirty five u s c one of three as unpatentable over anderson and mcdonald that's the part that's relevant here so what the patent office is doing and set forth in the petition and that's at appendix page three thirty nine and three thirty four we explain where in mcdonald it show in the arrangement for reactivating the zammit are adopted that rejection the examiner then recanted not on the arrangement for reactivating but with regard to other steps and then that got appeals the issue about the arrangement for reactivating and whether it was sufficient was never argued by i become and so the board's original two thousand and thirteen decision found that they were the one issue that the examiner had recounted on the examiner was wrong the rest of it stands and so is based upon our proposed rejection that we provided in our original petition what happened then is that i become sought to reopen prosecution for new evidence and then they said there's additional stands you can point us to for this i'll just call an elaborate theory for why we can go ahead and read the conclusion sentence at the end of a board opinion doing capsulated everything that happened in the prior seven years of the re exam well i can't quote a opinion to your address so let's let's just assume that all we really want to go off of is the four corners of this four decision and on the four corners of this board decision we see probably see a donaldson problem then in that sense would you agree that we need to remain in this section of the opinion back to the board so that it can actually do the datsun analysis well your honor i still believe that what this opinion is i'm asking a hypothetical  because this opinion is a reconsideration and it wasn't the the duty of the board to set forth a complete opinion they only needed to raise the issues that were brought in front of them from i become in their request to reopen prosecution and see if those carried water and they found that they did not that i become argued that they never argued before that the arrangement for reactivating wasn't found in the combination of andersen mcdonald they agreed on that it was never appealed the first time and so now they're saying there's additional steps that were considered before and the board said no all the additional steps that you're pointing to are required sounds a lot like the other side's according to these matters of appeal our notice of appeal could have been better but our notice of appeal satisfy the requirements under a forty seven sixty one c which says that you have to point out the claims now forty one sixty one d which is what i become points to says that you're supposed to set that the board is required to take up whatever grounds we propose i guess the point i'm trying to make this is soon as the other the door for each thing that they reopened and for it as that's why thirty one hundred thirty seven come in because they actually stated in their request to reopen prosecution that although the decision on appeal references of the claims thirty known or presumes that the board intended to reject all claims namely and then said thirty one thirty seven they said they presume that and then they went ahead and amended the claims thirty claim thirty four so of course we had  an opportunity to respond to that and it made sense that the board then addressed claims thirty one through thirty seven but this other issue about the arrangement for reactivating that was a done issue that had been already and they were didn't say that the board reached the issue it didn't say wires anyone talking to me about this new interpretation of the arrangement reactivating like i'm not going to address that because the opportunity to have considered this was in the two thousand and thirteen board decision it was raised that i'm not going to allow it to be raising now instead it reached the issue it was argued to them was debated by both sides and they reached the issue and acted possibly defectively but nevertheless they reached  i believe those are the only issues that were raised in the opening argument self thank you ok for listening carefully to the questions i get the sense that the panel believes the four corners of the decision in accordance with administrative appeal case law does not contain the appropriate findings for this court to review algorithm is the court should remand should try to undertake to provide guidance to the parties in the patent office on that algorithm it's a plain construction issue and that could hopefully short of proceedings if that were to go in the twenty t