with respect to why you concluded microsoft's evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate anticipation of that claim i'm starting at the record appendix eight twenty seven in the first full paragraph on that page the board indicates that they conclude that the evidence provided by microsoft is not sufficient including primary key column information the argument that that is made as it relates to claim thirty two that at least the initial argument then makes sense that if you actually never argued to the board in exactly the same way that you argued here did you ever actually mention user queries in your argument to the board we had two arguments that we presented to the board the first one was based on the index information system call unstable or in the system tables t also had a separate item that we point at the board too and that was the fact that the boy that we're determining connection with claimed thirty one are stored as primary key information in both the system columns table and the system tables table and the storage of that information as primary key information was sufficient to to be information in a column that true that we did talk a lot about searching i'm not i'm not disputing that however the clane requirement doesn't require searching it requires text entry and the searching we were talking talking about begins with  question becomes if you're going to interact with chang at all you've got to have text entry is there information that's defined to be presented in a contained in a column that will enable the determination of a no id when you do enter text and the answer there is is yes in the patent there is a description of both searching type information that would be stored in a column but also the  ids themselves being stored in a column and the patent teaches in various places that when you enter text to create a row or to add a call on that you would end up with the them each of them separately satisfies the elements of planes one two thirty one thirty two thank you we when done when we talk specifically about  two so we we did point to both the system columns table and the system tables table as alternative ways in which you could find columns that were defined to hold information that would permit the determination of these from text entry so we sample maybe you want to move on to one of the other reviewers one of the issues in your we have quite limited amount of time thank you your honor let me if i could just briefly move to understand what the board said on those and it said all you said in your petition and all that after asking hoskin marriage between visual basic and salt is what you just didn't have evidence of what why it was that one reasonable reading evidence for the following reason that the bridge that we provided and talked about to the or it can be seen if you look at how the border treated the discussion claim fifty four which is the independent claim from which these others depend followed by the identification or claim fifty five for example of the specific teachings that sultan provided if you look at page eight sixteen fifty points out that visual basic which is a software program that programmers more are going to use discloses an index record called an index object then in paragraph four fifty one he goes on to point out that it has the capability visual basic has the capability of using the index record to locate records according to the field work now it is a programmer's tool and therefore you have to put something into the program in order to use it he points out that that those details about what you would put into it can be found in in a number of places but sultans one of them and insulted in four fifty two he points out that virtually every commercial system available is based on an inverted file design in inverted file design is another name for a keyword index where you go through and you pick out important words and then create records where you line up all the places where you can find them or so sultan teaches how to do that a very simple three word index and then he goes on to points out that if you had a program like visual basic where you have to put something into the index to make it work it would be natural to go look at the textbook like salt in the details about what you would put in  there and so that the two together that the fact that you've got a program that has an order to use has to be filled with something very specific teachings in salt and about what to do and the fact that you have  a known system being used exactly as it has been used widely this idea of keyword indexing is is the bridge that gives us the the common sense hook to put those two together and where in the record did you make fairness you need to read both what we said about that independent claim fifty four and claim fifty five when we get to claim fifty five exe expressly after we've already explained the indexing point out that you've you've got to program the teaching of what to put in the program the two go together naturally what and what is your response to them his arguments are there some hardware know that if you didn't respond to that low what's your response now sultan taught many things it was a textbook it taught it taught full text indexing it in other words every word and it also taught more limited she word indexing and we relied on it requires keywords keyword indexing if we look at column thirteen of the past it very clearly goes through and talks first without line forty five of column thirteen and then points out that there are other types of extraction with automatic and manual and so the idea of a more limited keyword extraction being different from full text d there's an overriding issue that wasn't addressed to my microsoft and its argument and that's the end fish one claim construction in case twenty fifteen dash twelve forty four dollars for to us even if they were addressed under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard before the board and fish patents at issue here expired several months after the final decisions were entered by the board the court construed the phrase a logical table and emphasis on a it said that the specification makes clear that the invention is directed to the arrangement of a single so the court should affirm as to claims thirty two thirty six forty two and forty three solely based upon the end fish one claim construction because that agrees with the board's finding of the single table requirement and that was the board's primary basis for finding that the invalidity proofs failed so even if we agreed with you as to some of those claims that the microsoft is arguing that it is to claim thirty two that they they are admission said a one three six one in which the board concluded the doctor hosking that minute on cross examination that he could not point to any single table in changing that allowed the termination of o text entry the board also for made another fact finding its final written decisions and this is a one three six three that microsoft had a failure of proof on this issue because there were gaps in change disclosure and microsoft had never filled in the gaps adequately finally briefly with respect to the searching claim construction issue we would submit that the board of simply responded to address to the arguments that microsoft presented all of the arguments presented concerning the determination of a lot of these to be a text entry presented to the board and to this court or based on aquarian or searching this court observed in  re baxter international said unsurprisingly the board only addressed baxter's arguments and the others were aware of the same situation here where the argument is that the board addressed where in the context of searching there is no express holding by the board that searching is required can you address the the indexing claims what why why why is microsoft wrong in say based on what i  sixteen fifty nine and so on hoskings decorations that somebody skilled artisan reading if you know basic would know i still have some work to do to implement this and common sense argument that's articulated here was not square that presented to the board so the board did not consider commonsense argument second the board made fact findings and the question for this court is whether there is substantial evidence like to turn to the claim construction for object identification number there are two important aspects of the object identification number and the appeal claims first so that determines the object identification number or in every appeal to claim the claim states that the object identification number is to identify if you wrote you argue to the board that there was a difference between its use of the word define and there are some and your preferred term thank you your honor we consistently argued that the construction should include identifying disagreed with the board there is  not extensive briefing on the difference but we certainly are on record explaining why identifies the correct term the board in our view  that after the institution decision that said we want to we think you need to clarify amend elaborate i don't recall reading anything in which you said one of the ways you should change this is  things equate to what swapping out identifying defines if you turn to play thirty one or claim forty one year order you'll see that the claims used object identification number to identify  want to be remember that these claims are computer operations their computer operation claims and the question as to change is a patient of whether the system had assigned a value as an  identifier for a row or a column not whether any definitional information might be found somewhere in a row but that was the effect of the board's construction i also like to briefly touch on but before i leave identif think it is important to note that microsoft agrees that the construction of a lie d should include identify they they argue that it's harmless error that the board misconstrued the term as i explain not only because of the claims used identified and defined for example in claims thirty one and forty one also because of the express claim language taking out identified and replacing it with the fine dramatically changed the meaning of the claims microsoft also agrees with end fish regarding the requirement that uniqueness should be an aspect of the construction of  have to be identical and one would think that if they don't have to be identical whatever else they are they're not the same object of the patent doesn't say for these purposes these are the same object the words correspond are used the effect from a tactical standpoint is identity because the same identifier is used in both places you have identity as the border and five five nine case did address this dispute between microsoft and fish that's it a one hundred two to one of the three the board agreed with and fish that to the extent such a whole idea is unique between the column and row that we are individual column it doesn't talk about database and why does it your honor that's our interpretation it does not speak to database wide however i'd submit that because in chang neither the column name or column number would be uniquely represented in rows that even under microsoft local uniqueness interpretation none of change disclosures would satisfy that you need this requirement as to the ro id you cannot possibly have uniqueness in the sense you are arguing we didn't interpret it that way all reserve my remaining time for a while mr rahman you mentioned that you if i could refly just to clarify and sharpen up on what our position is with respect to the construction of o aidid we don't think that the board made a mistake that requires any adjustment by the the panel here today that the construction of all id was the construction of just one term it wasn't the construction of a whole phrase in any of the elements of the claim so what the board did is they said a light he means they looked at a portion of the patent on that talked about the i d f defining rows and columns and another portion of the patent that talked about the ideas being bitter race when they put those two together instead for t we're going to have this construction that the o ids are bitter a's that define that word didn't ignore the rest of the claim language each of the claims require that you have an old id that identifies roles and zero i d s that identify columns if we look at what the board said on eighteen of its decision they point and each bicycle car so that the board was applying that identification requirement not ignore if we go and look at how they are fighting to change that the reference that anticipated claim thirty to you at page eight twenty three the first full sentence there at the top of the page says also change discloses in accordance with our construction that each database table includes column and row identifiers such as record id column numbers or column names comporting with the proper interpretation of a no id as an array of bits that define a column so we  disagree with the idea that the board was ignoring the requirement that stated in the claim that an id needs to identify they applied it both in their claims construction analysis and also when they went to apply here that the reason for that is based in part on what happened at the hearing there was an extended discussion that took place between between council and the board in which we were discussing column three figure three rather than the fact that you have a column in a row that both have the same id if we look and i don't actually post you wrote a column not according to the patent actually have to have identical content right correct and they don't in the f so we don't think that there is a way to have a universal uniqueness requirement to make sense of the intrinsic record and with respect to the other other things that in fish is trying to add to the construction the board's error and confusing define and identify becomes apparent when you look at the final rescissions because the board's language reveals that although it uses the words identify and define first of all it said that it applied its construction of defining in reaching its decisions second and there's no finding by the board that chang discloses assigning the column number or column name as the identifier for zero instead not that of course would have been required if a column number or column name was actually the system identifier for the row and instead of order found that that information was definitional information that could be found somewhere in a row insists columns that definitional approach allowed the board to avoid the real question which is whether the system identified that entire row with and zero idea that had been assigned based upon column a or number that teaching is not present