one involving the term fastening location one involving the term pre determined sequence if the court agrees with my client wildcat on those two issues then what is left is a factual issue whether or plural and then it says including at least first and second fastening locations in space to part relation that language comes almost exactly from column five  location fifty two a second fashioning location fifty to be a third fastening location fifty to see there's only one way to construe that it's that they are individual fastening locations in fact the pattern throughout only discloses individual locations and in fact during the prosecution history if you look at page three five six you'll see that the examiner treated so i suggest on that issue the evidence is overwhelming that the board was wrong in that interpretation which leads to the pre determined sequence issue the board interpreted that language as a fastening operation performed at one of the first and second fastening locations only after a fastening operation is first performed at the other of the first and second fastening rotations no that is not that is not a pre determined sequence that language means that it's that it's pre determined with two with the two locations that you're talking about and in fact j c ice expert said exactly that one page eight hundred seventy six he said the sequence of fifty two a b and c is in memory before the operator picks up and it after bush so if you read that language literally you will end up concluding  the pre determined sequence has to be of both of the first and second locations are you talking about what the board has done is read pre determined out of that claim the patent talks about sequence in a number of situations and talks about a pre determined sequence those are two different terms in fact in fact that's exactly what the war has done so on these two claim limitations it has construed fastening location wrong it is we conclude i submit predetermine sequence wrong and so what is the effect of that the effect of that is i submit that gas can't possibly provide substantial one ball anywhere no example of one bolt anywhere not means that it doesn't disclose a single fastening sequence and moreover if you read gas you'll find that in fifteen paragraphs they talk about process size if you read the boards opinions it talks continually about process size it says it's a pre determined sequence of process ace the difference between process si and pre term and sequence of individual fasteners is that you don't solve the problem that is created by not sequencing individual fasteners if all you looking at is process process sites so you can trade a process right and go to another process site then you can mix up the individual fasteners any way want to or treat them fasten them any way you want to not sequence and that would satisfy the board's claim interpretation and that is totally consistent with the concept of pre determined sequence now i won't take much wrong flanger but i would like to j c i makes a clear you can add things to the kind but you still have to satisfy the crime limitations and so that doesn't get the board any place it doesn't get chasey i anyplace then they said well the branson testimony at the expert a got basically said that if you use the arm of the aisle seat as an example you can take fifty two a and you can take fifty to a prime or b we'll call it a fifty two b you get to be prime ignored is the fact that branson ended her statement with and the board quoted this and then ignored it quote as long as the pre determined sequence between the first and second location maintain you still have to maintain those locations even though you add things to it and the gas patent teaches nothing about that so then the board said well in qana concept than there is a statement and provide a sequence output indicating whether pre determined sequence has been achieved what that obviously has to mean if there's a pre determined sequence of two things each of which has to be in memory before you start it can't be you can't have a user select the first sequence and then the memory select the second one they both must be in memory you have to read that last sentence as meaning because otherwise doesn't make sense that you know what the first sequence is and then you're looking context of the interpretation so the board found the fastening location the ordinary meaning is a lot of place for a site fastening which is not just supported by dictionary for common sense if you have a board and you want to fasten it at the top and the bottom it prosecution history argument is probably even more strange what what happened there is there was a reference i don't even think it was fastening it was aligning holes with posts and the examiner applied a rejection u sing individual openings i suppose and they argue that they didn't contest that and therefore there was some form of disclaimer quite the contrary a disclaimer would be if you had ones with multiple openings and you said our claim still covered that would be a disclaimer here we just have a rejection not even a claim at issue the inclusion of the deep and claim it's not a it's not a disclaimer at all and in fact it would be like reading in a limitation from the prior art the examiner said here it is i'm applying at this time with individual openings that say next time i will use multiple openings no comment on that and then the exit applicant makes an amendment without any saying oh predetermine sequence means this fastening location means that there's nothing like honor one would look at the prosecution history and the war debt and how much of disclaimer in addition to the separate waiver issues and the reason they did that is because there was nothing that purported define fashioning location as an individual one i mean it wasn't even applied that it was a rejection of a broader and different plane and so it's not like there was even a lengthy history in conversation about a single opening being the fastening location and that's certainly not enough to be a clear  and in terms of the end this would be the end of it there is something that's been said in the briefing and i think repeated on oral argument here was that the board read out the word pre determined the board did not do that the board said pre determined is in advance so  fifteen in the record the board says we see this argument that petitioner says pre determined sequence is a sequence determined in advance and we accept that so there was no reading out of pre determined it was a application of the pla i have a claim a says a first location and a second location and you have to determine in advance where you start as long as you do that it doesn't matter if you pick the second one of the first one right and it's not remarkable first and second it's not an implied ordering  it could go either way but they did find that you need to determine it in advance and they looked at the record and they looked at the testimony they found that it's programmed in advance they found in gas that it's a correct sequence that has to be followed and i would say that's more than just essential evidence from which they could infer that gases predetermine sequence you have to do it one site followed by the next if the spore were to conclude that fastening location of individual openings because before found they asked discloses that you can have a process site or location that is just a single opening which would necessarily meet the link claim limitations because you go the sites are pre determined and if it's an individual opening individual openings or pre determined this finding was not challenge in the opening brief by the a palace which we point out in our response of grief and we say a reply brief is too late to rage check raise a challenge gas where there's a single circle the board you might say that circle is the site where you might say the circle is a site and in that instance a single opening the board can make its finding in the board that is a single opening the board went on to say that even if it's not a single opening we would still find the limitation that so this reasoning of the board is that let's suppose you have a site the top of a board where you've got two nails and a bottom where you've got two you've got an opening here and an opening here and the order of this one followed by this one is pre determined even if you might do other fastening operations at the individual  now for that particular issues the experts actually agree you can have intervening molting operations the expert princeton for wildcat actually put it in her or you could go a one b one a to b two and what that shows is that the intervening going to be one rather than going straight from a one to a two says you can have these intervening bolting operations which is something  that the expert for the petitioner agreed with in the board relied on that to make fact findings in this very specific technology context but the intervening operations will avoid the use of the claim and certainly not under a broadest reasonable interpretation disclaimer whether or not the board is bound the fact is it's relevant to the interpretation of the language secondly you heard the point that the war did not read out pre determined it said it must be in advance the very death of the war it didn't say you need to do both and that bans the boy didn't say the first one needs to be in memory and pre determined the war didn't say anything like that i suggest you read the boy's opinion and i don't think you'll find the point that was made the point about the experts agreed you can add intervening voting operations while i made a point i didn't hear any response to the point rinse and explained the intervening voting operations you still have to have the sequence that is the pre determined sequence that was  as long as the pre determined sequence between the first and second locations is maintained are heard absolutely no response to that the bottom line is the board did read out pre determined if you can  limitation is only that the second follows the first that doesn't dictate that the first is pre determined only dictates that the second is pre determined and that i can't think of any better way to describe the situation on clean meaning when you have to read claims in light of the specification and this bus occasion makes absolutely incontrovertibly clear that you're talking about multiple individual locations each one multiple locations