orientation detector and the sequence limitations the one in six patent identified as number one and two on page seven of can an explicit brief rather than their broadest reasonable interpretations consistent with the specification as usage departs from its ordinary meaning of two or more it interpreted the singular word orientation as permitting the detection of multiple orientations during a single slow motion phase rd it reads the term orientation condition out of claimed twelve and the specification by allowing multiple detected orientations during a single phase and finally it improperly defense figure three and discussions suffocation which the limitation requires the detection of orientation conditions for two or more slow motion phase so what is what is your basis to say that that h always means two or more just dictionary definitions well we have introduced to we had two separate dictionary definitions we had a federal circuit decision that also interpreted each as meaning two or more as well phases and was not limited to orientations for slow motion faces concluding instead that limiting the sequence by mere happenstance which the prior art could also do is sufficient recognizing the weakness of its arguments in the record samsung concocts at least two new arguments as your article argument and claim eleven differentia are differentiation argument and introduces extra record evidence tactics that are not permitted by the court and should be discounted when one of the six patent is properly interpreted consistently with the playing plain language and the teaching of the specification you serve combinations do not teach the disputed limitation but device does indeed move it would detect fast motion orientations and when china teaches no mechanism to preclude such fast motion orientations from the sequence but the orientation factor limitation recited the text orientation since your for each slow motion fades the proper broadest reasonable interpretation of the plane claim language that is consistent with the specification that it promotes one single slow motion phase despite multiple dictionary definitions and this court's interpretation that each refers to two or more agreed the board agreed with the same sort of conclusory expert opinion that each can be one or more by motion conditions are met further the boards and protection of the or any patient protect your limitation requires the court to agree that the clean term orientation which is singular permits detection of multiple a sequence of orientation a warning cation conditions of the hand held device the signal processing generates a fall resilient command absent complex now festering periods of fast motion the presence of one or more periods of fast motion serves as confirmation that the sequence is the product of intentional user actions under the board's broadest possible interpretation which completely discounts specifications this fall resilient technique is completely read out of the claims values of x y and z sensor data within certain limits over a predefined length of time such sustained values correspond to a single orientation such as orientation face up samsung asked the consistently with the term orientation contention and instead require a strained reading that ignores the term entirely figure three confirms that only a single orientation condition for each  detected despite each such things having small variations in x y and z sensor reading indeed the specification describing figure three explicitly recites there are two warning attention conditions detected including viewing the visual display three hundred and fifty two dollars and maintaining the handheld in the final position three hundred and fifty four dollars nowhere as a pattern teach or even suggest multiple orientations can be detected during or within a single phase the board also improperly construed the sequence limitation allowing of the claim sequence of the tested orientations to be limited to a slow motion  because the device never moved by mere happenstance rather than being limited by the invention itself but the invention itself much must preclude orientations during the fact that during fast motion from being maintained in orientation detector as a single orientation condition without an intermittent fast motion phase there simply cannot be a sequence of fornications and fighting otherwise would have a fault or is only a technique of the invention can you hear me yes great good morning your honor may please the court the board correctly construed the claim using the broad as reasonable interpretation standard that applies here in addition get around the fact that each is has a common usage and that in every dictionary it is it is two or more i understand the world war two veteran example but that's that is tom and usage and the question is here where in the specification does it take us away from the most common usage sure you want to let me address that so as the board found right the board board started with a tagline it didn't rely on anything except that type of example right sure you are of course looked at the patent he looked at the claims and in light of the claim language and the specification because if the court agrees with the board that detecting orientation for a slow motion phase it includes detecting orientations right during the phase as the board found that ea ch goes over your honor and let me explain why the board did correctly construe the detecting orientation for each slowmotion face and if you're saying that the singular word can become that's right that's right so so here if you look at the plain meaning of the claim the plain meaning simply supports and company it encompasses multiple orientation detections for a given slowmotion phase again when the board construed the claim it was looking at the claim language and the specification from the perspective of one of skill in the art and repeatedly credited the testimony of sampson's expert on these issues over kinetics experts now it's telling that kinetic points to figure three of the patent we did not hear a single thing about figure two of the patent and that we believe is key to this whole the whole claim construction issue in fact i think kinetic i heard as far as saying there is no support in the specification for the both construction but i think figure two is fatal to their argument and again the board looked at figure two and this is at appendix twenty eight dollars to twenty nine dollars of the board opinion it credit is the orientation detector figure two is what goes to the orientation detector and even if you look at figure three you can see doing a slow motion state as it's referred to in the description for figure three there are multiple orientation and this court should not do that especially under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard that applies or they could have amended the claim they chose not to but they're asking this court to rewrite the claim language unless the court has any questions on the orientation limitation said some things about the law that seems a bit crazy doesn't it they said that samsung had absolutely no burden to establish a reasonable likelihood of success from makes it seem like they did completely ignore any issue with respect to reasonable likelihood of success they simply said that because your expert said well you could save power by combining these t o therefore that creates a motivation and it did not even look at whether or not putting the two together could reasonably lead one to believe that you could practice the cla decision and i'll show you how you believe the board did address this issue so if you start with the board's opinion for example it started with this analysis that appendix seventy one dayer the board basically reconfiguring all of the all of the aspects of it and the fact that the two references might not teach a way doesn't mean that the fact that they do it in completely different ways is irrelevant you don't get to a teaching a way to take that into consideration with respect to reasonable likelihood of success so your two responses are that i apologize for interrupting  too to respond as to that one was that with respect to reasonable expectation of success i think the testimony that bridges pages appendix seventy two to seventy three that goes with a reasonable expectation of success right dr a bout is explaining how easy it would have been for one of scaling the art to configure the systems remember what we're talking about in terms of order and did he specifically address reasonable expectation of success in that in those terms argument fails for three reasons judge him on the st is that if you look at what the board did they looked at the test in regard of this court has pronounced the teaching of a test and they said kinetics argument just doesn't fit that test second teaching always has to be relevant that the two are completely different and opposite and so to get to that point next year on your honor and i think here here's the key to the teaching of your findings and this whole argument and motivation to combine six so so here they can hardly argue in our mind based on the board's opinion that the board there is enough here for this court to affirm the obvious determination unless you have any other questions on this to like to quickly go back to the cheek wants to talk to limitation and see if the court has any other questions ok so this is back to the sequence detector limitation again here the board did construe the did give the claim term it brought us reasonable interpretation and in light of the night of the specification and the intrinsic evidence and i think what it's telling what kinetic wants this court to do is it wants to import certain limitations from the specification for example for this limitation it wants to score to say that they detected orientations must be from two or more slow motion phases and they must be separate and you must have a fast motion phase that separates the two adjacent s doesn't support those limitations and i think i'll just make one point that the spec to the sequence limitation that i believe is fatal to their argument if you look at claim eleven claim eleven actually was tight multiple phases claims certainly cover that sequence and the prosecution history here was certainly this court should look at it it does not compel the conclusion that they want this court to arrive at and i'll just make one last point for the specter the prior art i frequently relies on its experts testimony that the board credited but the board's analysis was very circular and it really relied on board did you argue that there was a lack of reasonable expectation of success i believe we did you tell me where but that orientation is only detected once for each phase and he is all over his deposition it's on the for example