court today i would like to focus on the board's legal and factual mistakes in its finding that the johnson and mariah references each disclosed the claimed terminal identifier and i direct your attention to page twenty three in the appendix and the final written decision if that if the law is properly applied in this to this record there is no evidence that either reference meets the terminal identifier claim limitation even under the board's unreasonable claim construction and these sports error score for a reversal in this case so if i may let me turn first to the identifier reach the management facility in order for the claimed remote control to take place and i direct your attention to our column thirty four of the patent winds four and five which is at appendix one sixteen the board found made a factual determination and we do not dispute that johnson's ip address will sometimes but only sometimes reach johnson's data center but the border also found and  cs expert admitted in this is that the appendix at twenty two fifteen a paragraph forty one that sometimes the i p address will not reach the data center because the ip address will be behind a gateway server or a nat router and this is in the final written decision this finding is at appendix twenty seven and twenty eight so alarm dot coms expert in knitted that there are board's decision it read through johnson and that johnson doesn't disclose anything about an intervening gateway server or not router in between remote terminal and johnson's data center and so it would appear that there's essentially a direct connection over the internet which would then necessarily mean that the remote terminals ip address is getting to the data center and that your side argued well there's going to be times and back many many instances where there is going to be a gate where the server that route movements of johnson system where there is no gateway server there is no nav router and so therefore there will be environments of of employing jonson system where the ip address of the remote server remote terminal is being transmitted to the datacenter and so i was like you to respond that we don't do we don't disagree with that analysis your honor but i guess the idea then is if the references system contemplates a lot of different environments some with a gateway server a nat router and then some others with nothing of the kind then there are in fact  environments captured in johnson's disclosure that meets this particular claim limitation of an ip address of the remote terminal getting to the datacenter yes your honor that's correct and under the obvious heresy and i direct your attention to your recent a ready decision we have a missing element here the terminal identifier and under the law than here and see for obviousness it must necessarily follow that the terminal id the terminal identifier always reach the management facility as required by the claim in order for the remote control function which is the central point of  is which is courting to the arrested decision and others when you have a missing element like we have here it's a high standard it must necessarily always be present if the claim requires that the terminal it will not reach because of the presence of the servers you have to be able to identify the terminal it's communicating with the system in order to be certain that the terminal is permitted to control to provide the remote control of the system here in the johnson reference we only have certain cording to the board's factual findings we only have certain situations where that occurs and under the inherent for a missing element it's not present so it's a matter of law our position is your honor that johnson reference i does this not the requirements for obvious you can quickly turn to the mariah theory yes your honor or rejecting these claims as i understand it this hinges on the claim construction of terminal identifier to understand that the type of terminal that the remote terminal is in order to understand the display capabilities and communication capabilities so that the data that you send over to the remote terminal is in the right format for that particular terminal and the board looked to claim sixteen twenty nine and thirty seven to better understand what is a terminal like in a fire and looked at those claims and included that it doesn't necessarily have to be some specific unique code for a specific terminally but instead it's better understood to encompass other things including just knowing the type of model that the terminal is in order to understand its plain communication capability what is wrong with the board's understanding of terminal identifier in light of the way claimed sixteen twenty nine and thirty seven describe a terminal identif the could possibly think that's credible evidence well you know under our standard of review much our position is there's no credible evidence when we explain why first of all the terminal identifier as pointed out on column eight winds thirty four through forty in the patent the terminal identifier is separate from the model name the model name and the model terminal identifier are separately used in the patent and that's also found in figure six and eight of the patent so they're entirely different things so if you pointed out correctly judge chan the model the model name defines the general characteristics of the device it might be a particular model of a cell phone it might be a particular communications protocol that the cell phone could use but it doesn't a dent to find that unique in there and it has to be a unique terminal identifier has to identify this particular one as opposed to something that might i going to find say you know like a subgroup of terminals and i was wondering a given the existence of of claims that do seem to define depending quite soon to define the terminal identifier more broadly how do you respond to to what is it in the specification that makes you think that it has to be unique requires that your your remote control is being effectuated by a new actor using a specific terminal that is permitted to do so then you need to be able to identify that particular terminal otherwise you have no knowledge of whether the particular instructions that you received at the management facilities are from a authorized terminal so the whole thrust of this invention was to be able to provide remote control of security systems and the like and if any terminal that fit this category let's say all particular models of a cell phone could control make this remote control then you wouldn't have the kind of remote control capabilities that the patent is directed to and you're running out of time but just to give you some information i'm really stuck on claims sixteen twenty nine and thirty seven and i've been hoping you would give me a specific answer about those particular claims ok on top of those clients and how they describing characterize what a terminal identifier is and why you believe terminal a form of identify or and in the testimony from their expert sheet he admitted that there is various types of the den of fires that can be present in a self for example and so were our position is that the manufacturers terminal identifier isn't there's no there is no credible evidence that it's the model name as we use it in the patent there separately shown in the  id i do think you are there isn't it that these are describing an environment where the model name can be distinct from the terminal id but then of course claims twenty nine or thirty and thirty seven are expressly claiming that they may be the used so that the home network management facility can determine what kind of device it's talking to and tailor they displayed it to go to the device so that it can be appropriately displayed  device or high resolution that goes to high resolution devices that sort of thing so it's perfectly consistent with that aspect of the invention or a manufacturer model identifier or a model name or model code is morea puts it to be it's efficient identifier for that purpose and there's absolutely nothing in the patent that says that the model that the terminal identifier must be unique identifier must identify a specific device there's there's nothing there and indeed identifier what is a manufacturer a model identifier all we have to go on is plain language there isn't a definition of that term in that seventy seven patent there is no not for the limitation of it in seventy seven fan it's just something that identifies a manufacturer's model by plain language and that's exactly what the model code is in rio and we would respectfully submit the board was exactly right to find that maria on its own disclose lot of it frankly is unclear but i think one thing that is clear is the terminal identifier is nowhere in this patent limited to something that is a unique identifier you know unique within the whole universe or within all among all devices there's nothing that says that here at all and quite the contrary again claims twenty nine and thirty seven indicate that it may be the time when a fire may be simply any manufacturer is model out of order and that's fission that's perfectly sufficient for the functionality clint how do you is the right person to control in the home devices some have across the country yes exactly for the purposes of security that's but that's perfectly sufficient the measure facility also has an association between  terminal identifier within the meaning of the seventy seven patterns just as the board found and that's indeed sufficient to satisfy either given its construction their proposed construction or them it's construction because the model code as the word in order to find that the terminal id limitations disclosed so let me talk a little bit about johnson and how the boards and say well sometimes johnson's remote terminal i laptop and labels it as a web browser and internet connection that's the user's computer in the johnson invention web browser and internet connection it connects directly via the internet to the to the data center that's in johnson fan well if my mother were a bus but you have wheels and live in a garage well it's not a bus and the johnson patent doesn't say anything about gateway's or nat or anything like that and that's what the board found that's the that doesn't it's not sclerosis not describe examiner noted cited johnson actually to reject the original claims and cited johnson as disclosing paternal identify or as the original translated from japanese claims that an identifying signal examiner cited johnson as disclosing exactly that ip address is the identifying signal or terminal identifiers it's now paul and all the claims of not all most of the claims were rejected over johnson on that basis the applicant at the time then came back and added the limitations that mentioned about tailoring the display data to send the right kind of slater to the right kind of remote terminals those limitations added and the claims were allowed over johnson with the addition of those in the appeal which has to do with first and second control information here didn't i will note i did not offer any construction below as to these terms first and second control information nor did i won noted that there that first and second control information proc or have a different sort of different purposes within a claim you first control information is sent from a user terminal a remote terminal do that mention a facility in the second control information is passed on it's received from the remote terminal and then passed on to them through the home server so that's just copying the content of the first control information to that second control information and passing it on that's perfectly ok thank you thank you you minutes thank you your honor we think the terminal identifier she neat but our argument does not depend on this regardless of whether it's unique it's not a model name because the pat