clear plain language of the entire claim term inconsistently with the specification and with the purpose of the invention i'd like to turn first to the entire claim language the claim language of that of that particular step is organizing the encompasses simply ignoring the vast majority of the traces but where the language doesn't say organizing some of the traces into bins it doesn't say organizing eighth floor store just generally traces into bins it says organizing term organizing in isolation you may be steered that way although the plain language the plain definition of organizing that the patent office cited still doesn't expressly talk about discarding but the question here is not the word organizing by itself the words are organizing  cordon it designated set of traces and that set of traces was identified in the earlier step the assigning step identifies and it quote defines the set of trace so the language says that you have to organize that set of traces into being it doesn't say throwing them away or putting them elsewhere and this isn't a situation where just a few traces disappeared the vast majority of the traces in gallagher are discarded or ignored and as the board held on eight thirty six they said what happens in gallagher is that the traces are already in the bins at the end of the assigning step they said the assigning step both creates the bins in gallagher and assigns the traces so they said the organizing step merely involves ignoring some of the tra ignoring is not organizing them into bins to go back to the closet example that was in our grief if there is a pile of clothes on the floor and you look at your child and you say please organize the pile of clothes into the drawers and you come back and ninety percent of the clothes are still on the floor and ten percent are in drawers you wouldn't say oh you're done with the job you'd say you still have to finish organizing the pile of clothes into the drawers so first of all the clean language of the plain plain language requires conclusion that the patent office at the patent offices and the board's construction was erroneous but in addition you have to look to the specification and this is another place where the board erred because there's no dispute that the only examples in the specification of the patent do not just scarred or ignore any traces whatsoever the patent office doesn't contend with that fact under b r i you still have to have a construction that's consistent and not divorced from the specification as this court has found repeatedly in the microsoft the proxy com case cited in our briefs and in the in re smith case cited in our briefs the correct interpretation has to correspond with what's described in the specification and how the inventor describes their invention and that is directly at odds with the construction that was here in both of those cases what th you reviewed the lower court's decision and you said what happened here is that in the specification there was really only one way it was described and because it was only described that way a b r i that is a vastly broader than that is incorrect here with respect to the whole point of the invention and the testimony from dr lynn which is under spirited this is a seventeen thirty nine through seven hundred forty five he talks about the point of this invention was to enable line that reflects the distance and also the angle of the train and so they're all assigned those coordinates and then just put on ordinary the grid is what's happening in the in the organizing stuff so what's happening and that's a part of the brilliance of stars invention was to recognize that when you when you first assign the traces with that sort of assignment system you can then overlay a grid and there's a decision that goes into that how big this you know which sort of grid you're using how big the boxes are but when you overlay that that we're defining is very important because it defines the set is that ok this is my universe of traces that i have organized with coordinates and then the organizing step refers back to that there's no question about the antecedent basis in the ordinary thing step refers back to that set and i said now i'm going to practical matter you have to look at the spec either way but putting that aside it's really the full claim term that you have to look at and so pulling out a dictionary which by the way the piece of didn't rely on the dictionary and its construction but pulling out a dictionary for just the word organizing loses the benefit to which you may remember it was something they did after retiring so they originally had construction it was consistent with p b s s position and then they flipped over a dissent on rehearing now that claim to issue in some ways only materializes as a result of the erroneous construction of organizing because under the right construction of organizing you don't have a situation where the number of traces per sub in changes over time if you don't permit decimating bergen or in traces there's only ever one because the examples in the specification tell you exactly how to interpret these claims and they tell you they use these exact same languages claim to and they say that's a post organization situation and under the thought the oracle case that we rule that gives the judge that discretion i think as a matter of considered no temporal limitation well what the piece have actually said was there is no temporal limitation apart from the fact that there is an antecedent basis in the assigning steps so it's kind of a little circular to say there's no temporal limitation briefly i will not address that but one final point on the claim to issue which is that i notice that the patent office takes a different position from what the p tab did and they take the position that they claim to actually refers to either or both pre organization or that's the only way this can work out if you look at the specification it does not explain as you suggest a judge clevenger how the organization actually takes place the only reason it turned out perfectly invalid specification i believe is because the geometry was perfect begin with you have for ality of traces in the common reference point then so again you're not necessarily a sign of a coordinate stuff to all of the traces in the van are going to gather new just collecting treyf right well it says gathering from the data the data is presumably the entire dataset of traces and gathering from that data could well be a subset of just as a plurality could be just picking two traces out of the entire survey of thousands of traces so the claim language i think counsel just said about that necessary assignment step it could well be that the specification used all the data in that very stylized example that it used but that was just dumb luck and gallop gallagher could have had that as well if gallagher had a preexisting yes it does but again and then and then they direct us to this specifications but again the such a case and doesn't fix lane how you would organize any set of data except for the one that they had in front of them in which case a few more and they're trying to reduce down to or some soon introduce a human that's minor say oh gallagher as well as my understanding of how star works except in the special case where you have a perfect geometry and there the organizing stuff appears later in the claim the assigning the stuff in the gathering stuff essentially perform the function of discarding whatever traces are not going to going to give you the regularized set of traces in gathering step she asserted to me that the invention never discourage or ignores any trends all of them are accounted for i understood her to say that you don't even discard any of the gathering or assigning steps which i think it's probably incorrect in most cases i'm contemplation decided that they had got it wrong the first part and i think i think it's pretty clear you know if you just look at claim to all it really does is add a  doesn't say anything about where that would occur and i'm looking at going to assume you've got it as well across the present plane one where in a plurality of the coordinate the designated set of traces have the same coordinates and if you go back to where the coordinate set of where that where the court it doesn't need a set of traces is created that's before the so called organizing stop and yes and gallagher you look at those shells they've gone for th set of traces right exists in both the assigning why and in the organizing cause is correct that's correct so why wouldn't you attach language from claim to both to the to take claim to and high em all and claim one on the claim to i i don't think so i mean i would say a much clearer way of writing claim to would have been say to say a process as it might have been a clearer way to write and we're stuck with what we've got here i'm just saying the fact that they did not use the clearest possible way when they could have suggests that they may have been looking for broader coverage and that the claim may in fact cover more they could have simply said where split they have one more in the first time around decided to assign claim to the organizing step in which case there was no anticipation and then they have a change of mind and two people say no i'll assign it to the deciding step in which case you know the way around and so i'm saying to myself is this arbitrary or capricious what's happening who's getting the right to decide which of the two limitations assigning organizing claim to get  to i guess i'm not aware of any rules claim construction which completely deprives you of that choice i think if there's no temporal limitation on the claimant where you've got a where in clause referring to an element that occurs at one point in the claim if that element i signing and organize and to anticipate claim through you have to anticipate and sign and organize it that's correct because otherwise you've been intentionally grand in this case it's don't have to gather all the traces and you don't have to in the first instance assign cordon it's to all the traces although the evidence that's undisputed is that it's really expensive to collect this information and you don't just throw it out for kicks that said what you ultimately assign traced to what you alternately assigned cordon it's to which is the output of the assigning staff that needs to all be organized into bins and that's where the argument breaks down for the patent office because what happens in gallagher is the full body of traces are assigned coordinates and in fact they're already in bins even before the organizing step and so the only thing that's left is ignoring large amounts of data now one thing that and i should add that whether or not you can ignore some of the data in the first step the gathering step or even at the beginning of the assigning steps doesn't help them in any way because they still have to do something to satisfy the organize and stuff so if ignoring is happening at the front end ignoring doesn't qualify as organizing it is not however a matter of dumb luck that starr had these perfect perfectly organized bins that's the key to the invention the key of his invention was that he recognized that if you were able to assign coordinates in this fashion to data that previously had been wildly irregular if you if you created these spider diagrams and overlaid them into these organized bins you wouldn't have to change the survey geometry or discard data and so the idea that it's just an accident that what happens in figure six evenly falls in the bins and nothing's discarded is frankly inconsistent with the invention it is the invention to recognize that you can do it this way and then perform sub in by s now i would urge you to recognize that the patent office hasn't pointed to anything showing that in the store patent any traces are discarded ever so i understand their argument they think it's conceptually possible but the specification doesn't support the conclusion that stars teaching you to discard data the conclusion is you put them all into the bin with respect to claim to i'm going to reiterate the patent offices position is not to defend the board did the patent offices position is now they claim pick one and obviously the people have first came out with the organizing step which is the only one that's consistent with the specification because column three sixty six to four seven tracks this language identically and tells you the relationship between claims t