this propagation channel issue well if we look at the claim the claim specifies that when you generate in a noise correlation estimate that you're generating a noise covariance matri or in this case of noise correlation matrix based on the propagation channel estimates so he not only had to demonstrate where the reference showed the calculation of a noise correlation metrics but he also had to show that that calculation was based on propagation channel estimates now the examiner and the board and the government's brief for that matter completely ignored the term propagation channel estimates to make some statements about the noise correlation matrix i disagree that the reference shows noise correlation matrix either but i think the clearest error there is that the propagation channel has to miss or simply not in my credits that that phrase propagation callousness isn't never mentioned series of factual statements regarding what pseudo random binary sequences are what how the person of skilled in the org would interpret the term noways and most of these are based on no evidence at all include noways and it is by no means teaches that the skilled person to what extent is the examiner considered one of skill in the art i think that's a difficult question and i don't really know may be able to follow technical references the examiner is not the kind of person that would be producing this kind of source material that we're  doing so anyway that's the second key point is that the factual statements made throughout the record are simply not based on in most cases any evidence at all and the one citation to evidence really doesn't support in this position so i understand that you maybe i mean you know both of them talk about sampling for noise and i think actually talks about noise can be either predictable or unpredictable and it seems to me like predictable no way sounds an awful lot like to the next you can't tell what the value of that noise is going to be now in a large sense you can make some predictions about the nature of that noise so you can you can characterize for example the band with that you expect that one occupied you c arise the range in values that it's expected to have but you can't predict the value of that noise but any given time and that's that's a critical distinction between noise and a pseudo random binary on the fact that it knows it has a copy of the pseudo random binary sequence that's what it's using to to figure out what data was intended to be s what random random jamming of a signal being noise random in jamming and c d m a in particular you do choose the pseudo random sequences that are very long because it is very hard to predict them it's nothing they're completely unpredictable but it's hard to predict them and they have wide russell's detector because russell is not looking for noise like properties in this receiver signal russell is trying to determine which of the specific pseudorandom codes it already knows about is in the signal at any given time i'm not really quite sure how different that is from your comment and i understand it's not pseudo random code but it isn't what's going on still that inures is there some kind of pilot signal and it can you take that pilot signal and compare it to what's coming in and filter out all the noise you think that is how different is that then knowing what the pseudorandom code is and then pulling that out and getting sick don't russel's russel's  s describes a correlation based detector which is similar to those that are used in many many c d m a type devices cellular phones and so  the the application issue is dealing with communications receiver and particularly with c d m a communications received the difference is that russell is concerned with the detection process so russell is describing a detector that is trying to figure out what signal was present in that noise and it happens to use what's called a correlate or to pull that signal out the mr wall ends up location on the other hand isn't worried at the moment with detection process at all what his concern is is that in these very advanced receivers it's important to get a very accurate estimate of what the noise is all by itself and that's used for a number of things including deciding lance claims and the application are dealing with the processing of norway's the estimation of noise completely distinct from the process of correlation detection it just so happens that the properties that us prosecution and you said well no it's not the same but you didn't and to specifically put that in a claim well i didn't and then because i don't think that russell discloses generating a noise correlation estimates he the russell circuit produces an output that actually estimates the data that was put into the transmitter at the beginning of the chain it doesn't even estimate the pseudorandom signal determines whether it is they are and then from that it can conclude what date it was meant to be sent thank you patients are having a correlation matrix and that it's based on application channel the matrix you do draw this reasonable interpretation is just a collection of data russell shows extent that it is not intended language russell discloses that it is that the the that is based on a channel could be any medium so given that the broad cla russell discloses that language it's never mentioned by the examiner or by anyone else is on the government's on the phrase propagation cha the board found that the examiner made a provocation case additionally the board found that the russells correlation matrix could be applied to any channel any media which is transmitting i don't think that ok so i understand that's the key quote and that's on page twelve word rehearing decision but that seems like the first time much but it doesn't say anything even in that answer about how that relates to to propagation channel estimates it may be that that the board statement is correct that it that you come up with for the first time i want to feel i understand that honestly it all sounds like the right to me but i don't see anywhere in the examiners in the record where there's a factual i don't believe it's a new ground of rejection by the board i mean the board is still relying on the examiner findings and the examiners reasoning i mean it is what you're saying that the the matrix the correlation matrix that russell discloses to generate noise on simmons is the same thing as getting rid of noways and rehearing don't address propagation channel estimates at all right you agree with those words don't appear as far as i can tell and anything until the board's second decision so how do we know that a correlation matrix and russell has anything to do with propagation channel  get to propagation channel asking that i mean i don't want to take up too much of a bottom basically that this correlation stuff gets rid of noise that must be the same as correlation propagation channels and dealing with getting rid of noise and those too and that's good enough that's all we have i mean isn't that just the term length of plain language based on propagation town i submit it doesn't add anything  still pseudo random not completely random and it seems that i think maybe i'm getting the technology wrong again that his noways claim part generated to true noise which i he can say that noise is just true random noise i think if you want a specific definition of noise he had to include that in the specification and so your position is taking the broadest reasonable meaning of his claims even if there is a difference between truly random noise and pseudo random noise and and russell his claim includes both truly random noise and pseudo random noise i think he didn't disclaim the pseudo random noise  of an unwonted component of the signal as something you know added to the signal which obscured the true data that you're running which i think is the broad reasonable definition of came the board's explanation came up late in the game but i want to know what your response is to the board's conclusion assuming that there is factual evidence supporting it how you would say that that's not right your claim means with regard to propagation counts i think i understand what the board saying but i'm not sure how i link what they're saying with what you think your language about propagation channel is quite wel describes how to calculate that correlation matrix that you start with which is your initial noise correlation estimate and it shows a calculation that includes propagation channel estimates and correlation in the specifications it's a little hard to parse sometimes because it's not written for people like me but you can see for example in paragraph twenty eight there's to another point i want to make the government complains with there's no definition of noways or no definition of noise correlation in the specification i would disagree it's not laid out in terms of the lay person but then back to claim six you know russell as i say doesn't describe a correlation matrix with all and certainly doesn't show computing one based on population channel estimates and then finally the point on the on claim