but they fixed the bone in place they screwed it down so you didn't need to know where the bone was its position never changed the improvement here was to allow the bone the workpiece the term that's used in the patent or target some time allow that work or your entire portfolio it sounds like in this pattern there are claims that are directed to devoted to tracking a specific kind of data the data and you're talking about position in the kitchen data coordinate systems and all of that right there's a number of claims out and we have others so i guess we're it's up to us to try to figure out why this tracking data have to necessarily mean that particular kind of data in this number of meanings there are a couple of examples in this pattern where they used the word track to to look at something other than its position like there's an example where they're talking about the motor of the cutting tool but when you have pretty clear disclosure to a number tracking the workpiece is later referred to essentially as its position for example it starts in the background of the invention in column one twenty eight to thirty five words saying you know fixation  phrase is what's important not just the word tracking data but there is no clear definition of that phrase in the specification what we're saying i guess it's the full phrases tracking data associated with the cutting tool and the work right and there doesn't seem to be care about in its location and our position information so that if you look for example in column nine line right around fifteen to twenty it's talking about the methods and systems that that they have work or work pay piece image so you're imaging it and there's a real life work piece you're trying to associate those two because you've got a computer screen and you're trying to help the surgeon make a decision about what to cut and what not  says you can track the workpiece and the cutting tool and then transform the track positions of the cutting tool in the workpiece that's a pretty in our view pretty clear implication that when you're talking about tracking the work and the cutting tool you're tracking their positions and that's what that's what they care about every other example that's pointed to in the in the words decision by the government where other phrases for tracking  don't have anything to do with the workpiece they relate to either the cutting tool or something else and so we believe there was an implicit definition given in this patent specification that should be used in the claim construction process of the board so when you see the phrase in the claim tracking data associated with the cutting tool and the workpiece when it comes to tracking data associated with the cutting tool you acknowledge that that could be  a number of different characteristics other than position of a cutting tool but when it comes to the workpiece part now of the term tracking data in tracking data associated with the cutting tool in the workpiece now necessarily gets narrowed down to one specific characteristic the position of the workpiece is that right so as we're tracking data in that phrase will mean two different things with respect to two different now as we didn't have  the lower board about trying to get associate with a cutting tool but our view is that it has to at least include position information for that to in that's the entire point of the system is to know where both of those objects are during the surgery if you don't know where the cutting tool is and you don't know where the workpiece is you don't know when they're going to intersect in a way that's not in corning to the zine the whole point of these as you're cutting a bone for example you've got a target shape that you want to achieve so that you can put an implant in that bone and so you want to make sure that if you cut outside of that area that you know it and you tell the surgeon to stop where you take something true and that's what the control and it's all about so it would include at least position information for both there are certainly other things about the cutting tool you might want to know and that's the examples in the specification like the motor speed and some other things that might help you control health you know you want to know how fast the cutting tool is going you may want to slow it down if the surgeons getting close to  the very thing that you're researching your claim because in the end tailor yes it it's fixing the bone that's the intention but it nevertheless has it is using the strain gauges track the bone to make sure the bone doesn't move so if it's in it's either in position or it's out of position and soon as it shifts to any measurable degree then immediately the cutting tool shuts off so in that sense taylor is doing the same thing that your invention is doing and it is checking on the location of the bone to make sure the bone doesn't move so why wouldn't that fulfill this claim limitation with respect that's not correct first of all this is a system that has to provide the tracking data to the control mechanism there's no disclosure in taylor that anything other than zero it moved or it didn't move this provided from the strain gauge to its control mechanism and there is no information in that data where the bone started from how far it moved or if it moved in went back into the same place so you don't know anything about where the bonus from their system you know at most you know it moved in by a certain amount but if i'm standing in the middle i think that tracking data position it's not and maybe not as precise as your invention but you know it moved and you said by a certain amount that's a positional tracking it as and then no you are it's not because you don't know where it started from it's like saying if you were in the middle of a forest and you know that but that's not really you know the claim doesn't say you have to know precise leap where  has your to even under your definition you just say you have to have some kind of position but if you know something moved then you know that it's not in the same position it used to be that's positional tracking data well with respect we meant that the information would be information system like certain examples in the specification then you could have put that in specific claims going to europe we could certainly you always have the point that if there is a claim construction dispute coming from a people have appeal that the argument is you could have just amended the claim to say that i'm not talking about amendments it seems to me that you're asking us to violate our fundamental principle that we don't read and specific embodiments to limit claim terms when they're not otherwise limited on their face  this court has in many cases found where that's the only embodiment and i'm not aware of any disclosure where you're tracking the workpiece in this disclosure where the information that you're tracking is its position in a coordinate system that's what you need to use so that you can then according to the claim transform it into an image system it has coordinates the whole point again is we want to know where it is relative to the cutting tool so we've got a coordinate system in the computer and that's what you need now you need to be  face interacts with the prior art in a way that you tell us is not the correct construction but you're not willing to explicitly limit the claim to what you tell us we should in our minds limit the claim to necessary so you know what it is position is only information if it tells you where within some sort of reference point who are in that system it is so we that is the construction we've been offering from the beginning in this in this people have appeal wants to apply to their claims how limiting it to position in a porn it system over time is language that is independent claims dependent claims six limits it to at least three possessions and claim twenty seven limits it to forty tracking in a court system so they have claims that more narrowly defined their invention as a star in this positional data it's the scope of claim one where all you need is a tracker that provides tracking data and the board i think correctly said there's nothing in that claim language that limits it to position positions over time and if we look at the stats the kishen cares one of the embodiment is using this app to track system know about the prosecution history standing here today and what was argued about that particular claim language or the rejections they received was this prior reference to or heard of the original prosecution my understanding from the petition that it  not that it was a new problem your prior art that would be considered by the office for the first time so taylor the board then reasonably identified taylor with the strain gauge as tracking position of the be at least a position i don't think that the board understood that to be their position below but if they're correct it's the board's application of the construction lying on taylor's strain gauge a tracking motion the inherent in that finding position than the cutting tool turns off that's correct there's a freeze motion detector signal the controller then stops the cutting tool and so then you have a table as monitoring not only the location position of the cutting tool itself with some kind of marker but it's also tracking to see if the workpiece the phone which is supposedly fixed moves out of position that's correct and if it does and the tool turns off that's correct that's my understanding of it yes that's correct and the specification said when they say that they're distinguishing these prior art systems that rely on fixing the house that's that's in there in the background section but really we're talking about the objective reach of the claim in the board found it still there was nothing in claim one that precluded fixation and in fact taylor system adds the strain gauge to the prior to this system in order to be able to do the tracking so there's nothing inconsistent with their background session section trying to distinguish this kind of invention their invention but the object of reach of providing a tracker that provides at least one bit of tracking data is that is interest paid by the tailors use of the string gauge so unless there is any other question i will have a i want to hear the rest of my time what the term meant from the original prosecution the second point is in tailor everything that was described is correct but you still don't have a starting point you don't have an initial position in the computerized system so all you know is something moved it may have moved back and so we just believe that in light of this specification where it's important to know if you're going to have an intersection in the the goal of the patent is that you don't cut beyond what your original plan was unless you know where the workpiece started you don't know if you're not able to track the workpiece and that is the key element of this patent over the prior including one in claim seventeen there's other claims in the patent for sure but those plans are trying to get at the concept that you have some way of tracking both cutting tool and workpiece because both can move in contrast to  that scribe in the background which is exactly what tailoress mean taylor was many years before this patent in this is the kind of system that's referring to and it's talking about systems that are fixed so much you'll have any other questions i yield my