image is repositioned and using the undisputed facts about how curtains out for them works the facts that the board relied on and gave us and like to show that that is in fact not a correct characterization of figures five and six and this is on appendix six disclosed the set of rules for reflowing items such as the sequential rearranging in the board said this you quench will rearranging meet the needs a limitation of facebook's claims  a rule requiring image continuity as defined in the claims so if we look at the figures five and six and figure five i think it's helpful to have that it's an appendix for you and the description of figure that housekeeping thing there's a quibble with the end of your solicitor's reference to what i mean are you contemplating here if we were to agree with our position and it would be a reversal on the anticipation question and then remain on to the board and my board can do all i don't you know it's not our job to tell them who in terms possible other issues like what you can fight that fellow but isn't that the way we would proceed from i understand anticipation and then rebranding the case to the board for my understanding there'd be nothing left to remain to the board there's no other issues it please the court as you indicated judge moore and the issue here is whether a the parroted reference which does result in the images being contiguous  early so if you have a great read and you have that is filled and you're trying to fill a grid again you would result in a grid that's still filled and i would also rely on the fact that when we look at their claim language and what is actually disclosed about continuous it is a bra because you talk about the second position being determined based on a rule requiring the image elements to be continuous such that each of bailable image position between the first image element in the sequence and the last image element is occupied so i belive the image position is not defined and could be broad because if you have you know if you're constrained by the greater the size of the images if you want to put something that's too into one that is not an available image positions so i think reading their language continu ok my understanding was that they were arguing that it was you know not in the case of sixteen and seventeen but that they had accepted that it was the case of eighteen so you know when it became clear to me that their argument was that rearranging would not result in right so i have two responses an example start finish your question you're going to the first response that would say i think this needs continuous under their claim language because it you know it each available image to this in is filled and the second response that i had was that the definition your definition of a feel image right and the fact that first and last is also not clearly defined what's the first image algorithm i believe would give you the exact same result because they talk about finding the lapped most and shortest column and they also talking about constraining the grid so if they're ok but we're just looking that my but under your broad definition that you're saying for the first time today right that would have to be contiguous as well even though the board said it's not i don't see how your interpretation can be correct or at least it's not the one the point is that it really seems like one of those cases you should walk back i didn't walk it back you got an alternative i'm looking at you not an alternative argument that maybe has some good legs