you good morning may please the court michael shanahan for image processing technologies this appeal presents two primary issues the st is whether the proper claim construction was applied to the claim term was agreed upon by the parties when i put the term in the framework of element thirty nine t you can see that in our opening brief said page forty two dollars which is just a little more complicated and i want to make it clear that there is a little more verbiage there that that's as we put the construction of histogram into claim thirty nine dollars we get forming at least one statistical representation of the frequency of occurrence of the selected pixels are you sequence it does not count the frequency of occurrence of anything it is the intensity of the singular pixel at a particular point on that graphical representation and dr hart the expert it's an imprecise use of the word by the author it's just a sloppy application it looks kind of like what a histogram would be but so they call it a histogram but it does not meet the definition of histogram required by this case well on  page two or three of the appendix which is your preliminary response to this case didn't you likewise refer to figure five as a histogram yes you are but are are pulling every response change your mind after that well it's an optional response we you know with optional so i don't have to hold you to anything you say in it i believe that's correct so when you said that it was a histogram i shouldn't use that in i began this conversation by asking you whether or not the board's claim construction was sort of an ordinarily skilled artisans definition of histogram or was there some lexicography here that redefined that word by the pat down or in a different way and you up at the p temple specifically where opposing counsel said you would admit it this was a histogram and the judge at the court said no they don't make that admission in fact they specifically say something different they're not admitting  is also their grade level distribution that opposing counsel substitute the word histogram is also just a plot of intensity values that is not history that they attempt to combine furthermore your there's a section or brief and i can refer you to it if you try and combine these two technologies if you try and combine the horizontal intensity counting with the sum of the histogram technology you get a completely inoperable  adopted the definition exactly as i could see proposed it they don't dispute that construction and in fact i think he concedes in its opening brief page forty two dollars and that construction is nothing more than the play normally meaning of the term own expert declaration and therefore quotes and relies on dr hart's testimony extensively in its opening brief to describe to this court the proper meaning of the term so there's no dispute about the claim construction this case itself so i  s histogram definition and mclean is basically the ordinary definition a skilled artist and we get it and we have a publication here from sort of the preeminent publication in the field guide tripoli which is a peer reviewed publication called here there's much more than substantial evidence because aside from the erickson authors themselves again i tripoli peer reviewed calling it a histogram we have a string of which is incorporated by reference into erickson for its quote similar approach and into erickson but that's not what samsung argued and that's not what the board found which sends an organ with the board found was that a string of provides evidence of the meaning of the term histogram as used in ericsson and based on evidence the court then thought the the board then described the histogram in erickson in a way that's completely consistent with the board's construction the other thing mr shanahan refers to is figure ten from strength and he says well that's not a histo analyzed all the evidence applied the construction proposed by i p t and adopted by the board and provided a detailed explanation of why the urgent histograms satisfy the construction adopted by the board and for all these reasons we asked the court the claim construction to be an explanation of what ericsson does they don't make any comparison they don't ever go oh here's what the word here's where the corresponding is and the reason why they do that is they can't and pixels that line has as intensity of two hundred and fifty five and according to thirty nine you have to count pixels and he says no that's not what it does so there's no way that this can qualify figure five is just a bar graph of pixel intensity it does not count anything and just because i think that this is telling about what opposing counsel said mr president a is that dr heart and the board in relying on its decision credited this explanation this is incredible and so there's no substantial evidence and there's no explanation of why this makes sense and that's our position about why figure five