intel is not saying that the nd and rd voltage reference must be the same our point is simply that the claims do not require separation indeed depending claims eight dollars eleven cents make clear that the  nd and rd voltage reference can be quote substantially equal and elsewhere where the patent he wanted to require that enumerated elements be different it said so the claims are the broad enough to  accompany a compass both the figure for embodiment in which the nd and rd voltage reference are different and the figure three embodiment in which they are the same and the question before this court is not whether the claims unequivocally require intones construction as the one and only possible interpretation to be are i standard apply and at the very least our construction is not unreasonable now the board based its restrictive construction primarily on the word nd and cert but the lessons from this court's cases is that context matters when you're talking about enumerated  reference and a voltage domain what is the difference and to do with laying that to the board because a lot of this goes to an argument you make about the figures and only being two domains but including references and i'm just very confused looking at the figures and understanding the difference between the two terms sure so a voltage domain is the group of circuitry that's receiving the same voltage so provided by the same source a voltage reference in the context of this pie then these claims is just the voltage value itself  and the way they are worded to require the nd voltage reference is substantially equal to the servo to draw for and that's most logically read as saying that those are values and so when what you have these claims is the second and rd are just showing the correspondence here the nd voltage reference is the value that's being provided to the  transistor and the rd is the value of the rd transistor and they the language is doing work you know we're not reading the word nd and rd out of the claim they indicate that they may be  separate voltage references it couldn't in the sense that voltage reference is used here which can be a value a single voltage domain is the nd and rd voltage references are in the same domain i e they have the same value we're not saying it's restrictive claim claim nine uses the word comprising so it could include a rd voltage domain but it doesn't require that and this goes part to the sort of boards of reasoning about the alleged benefits of the figure for embodiment which was in embodiment as opposed to the figure three embodiment the the patent in column six talks about having a surge voltage to me and the benefits of shifting between more than two voltage domains but if these claims were supposed to be closed if they're supposed to be restrictive and limited to the figure for embodiment it would be very strange that the claims aren't claiming that benefit they're not the st gate oxide sickness and the nd gate acts i think if it is different from the st so you know putting all of these together we think that these are broader claims than the borg construed them to be this context means the different voltage levels right the difference could mean a different voltage level you know was being used the required as opposed to merely permitted by these claims then there would be a clearer indication and the fact that generally in our presidential opinion terms like  or rd are used to distinguish different elements of the claim so i think the lesson of this court case is that the context matters and they're they're used to label those different elements which can avoid confusion and it can show correspondence with another element but it doesn't always indicate a difference from the other  you know there is a nd voltage reference here is the voltage reference for the nd transistor rd voltage reference is the voltage reference for the  correspondence is shown but in terms of whether there is separation you know and in none of the cases that feel us eyesight's was the numbering alone dispositive and to the extent they address the issue that the requirement for separation always arose from from something else usually something in the specification so you know angle v lock form are you had a  portion of return portion so different labels but the reason they were had to be separate is because they were being described as being bent in different directions in the comma per the antec case they cite you the st opening  opening but they were described as being in different locations and they had to work so that air was drawn in through one and expelled through the other university of minnesota v a ga medical you know tellingly that case didn't emphasize the words st and nd the analysis focused on the word connected fixed the description of the present vention as two disks attached to one another and the lack of any embodiment constructed as a single piece and then many of the other cases really don't even speak to this issue at all they were about st and nd and rd being about relative placement and any background assumptions that these cases about this sharp distinction between the factors were again driven by the specification and on the other hand you have cases like powell the home depot where you have separate terms a cutting box and a dust collection box but a single structure satisfying both of them are linear attack the i t c where you have a nd circuit and a rd circuit and the whole thing was that they could share circuit so i think when you put all the cases together are you really is that you can't put too much weight just on those and numbered terms in isolation you have to view them in the context and here the context of the dependent claims the context of the claims that expressly call out differences when they want to have differences the dependency from the board didn't reach anything about voltage domains or the meaning of a voltage reference and if you go back to intel's opening brief their argument was largely such upon what i would say as a mis conflate at some point at least voltage domain and build a draftsman and you would agree there's a difference between the two graphs i believe there is a difference between the two i do want to i think the the patent suggests that is the case in the instance of figure four where you bring the t v too down to ground and need to be three as high if the voltage and elsewhere they are saying again and again and again that the voltage domain is the element that supplies the voltage i think that inconsistency speaks to how undeveloped their position is and even unless it is inconsistent with the specification or the prosecution history and here as we briefed we think the specification prosecutions are is not only not inconsistent it's entirely consistent with our position  broad claim here it would have you need savvy voltage reference for the nd transistor and it needs to have a voltage reference for the rd transistor so what do you call those if you want them to be able to be but if you want them to either be the same or different you're in different you want to broad to claim and in in that context it's perfectly logical to call one the nd and one the rd you're not dictating a difference you're not like in the other clans claims nine dollars twelve cents where you want a difference saying different from the other you're not saying separate from the other but you're also not using a term that would be confusing you're not just saying a voltage reference and using the same term twice which might confuse someone into thinking that they are required to be the same you're using language they show in the correspondence to the two transistors and is itself open as to whether a day may be different but they do not require it and when you put that together with the context of the dependent claims that then say they can be substantially equal that is exactly the way you would claim if you wanted the broad claims one intend to cover both embodiments and then you want to drill down to to claim one of the embodiments within that  reference was made to the claims in the prior patent i don't think that's dispositive in the sense that it's perfectly natural that if you had claimed one embodiment previously doesn't stop people from trying to seek a broader claim wherein one claim you would cover both embodiments and i think the lesson we see here that we haven't raised for is that talk to the source of the prosecution history also as an example of the