believe your honour's referring to the client computer aspect you claim construction there with respect to the conventional systems yes it may refer to prior art and having a client computer that's a user computer but that doesn't take away from the fact that the inventions that are described figure twenty six figure thirty three the product that architecture and in fact figures twenty six and the specifications are very clear that a user computer is the quantum computer and their specific  computer being a user computer so if i could back to your question gentlemen only with respect to all these issues that we're dealing with hopefully i'll be able to touch on some of these common theme that it doesn't require a network regarding the first issue it's telling that alpha proposed a very similar construction then as to have excess construction in its petitions before the board and under both apples and  but such a reboot be inconsistent with the specification which clearly shows that when a v p n c l is created it's created between a user's computer client computer to the secure server and this specification absolutely makes clear network and it's this thing which from point to point communications in that rely on the figure thirty three which shows the on going from memory the connection from the client through which could be it could be the internet but it wants to go from a different proxy or different node it's point to point and that's what's distinguished by the government its patents more importantly with respect to the second issue your honour's which is direct communications requires direct communication or leverage as direct communication it didn't say that that a v p n communication link that's like that that's absolutely right and to be a little more accurate with respect to what apple said they call it a clear mand proposed before the board there are also included a v p n v p n term is part of that construction and as set forth in our in our in our papers in our brief and before the board we've always argued that the direct communication that are requested by the user are not at that service i proxy the get request that apple points to is not it to get the resources refers to the origin server if you choose very clear in saying that's where the resources are located so to get to this point about referring to direct communications with respect to the client side proxy in the service i proxy the you have to look at the application of future as a whole with respect to the claims the least start my discussion because i didn't get a chance to touch on secure demeaning service so i'm going to try to hit that what's important here and i would like to make sure that i get this point out it's this very similar issues with respect to this term for seventy two hours in the ground there are about you'll see it starts with a description of the conventional dean uscis and it turns to dropbox of those of those conventional arrangements and then it turns to explain what it sdn asses it's a specialized you know what what is your definition of nonstandard that refers to another term as the s t l but all address that your honor nonstandard is a term that is related to secure the meaning now if there is no it apple kind of make a hey saying hey look it we never explain what nonstandard was that was there construction to not only before the bore but also want to process it the prosecution history disclaimer that they pushed in front of the district court as well same issue with us c n n s they had a disclaimer that they absolutely represented to the district court the same there's a there's a disclaimer here the board adopt it including the recognizing aspects that we want and that term which tracks exactly what vernet excess in its construction they had the same destruction in district court pushed it with respect to nonstandard their expert agree that the specification provides us in the end these proceedings their expert agree that one of more skill there would understand what a nonstandard is thank you judge or mellie may please the court john o'quinn on behalf of apple can we can we start where he started with the difference between a user computer and a client computer i mean it seems to me that the difference between the two lift it somewhat straightforward that that i'd use a computer to fire some kind of user impact back does it really matter leaving well in terms of the doesn't really matter that's actually where i respect to this issue and the board noted that if they were serious about limiting this to two to direct they could have sought to amend the claims that sports is not an option in district court but it is an option that's available before the board and the court distinguish prior art by saying well they necessarily disclaimed that but at the same time leave it and bigamous anough that they'll be able to get back in front of a jury with respect to their confinement reads of the board has and various proceeding but i do have one concern and that is that with respect to claims for six twenty twenty two thirty five thirty seven of the one eight zero zero i'm having a little bit of a hard time with the fact that the board specifically  what you presented related to something the board disallowed so let me make sure we're on the same page you're referring to claims for six twenty twenty two thirty five and thirty so yes the dates of those involve privy know and the  disclosed by preventing oh and i think that the board quite properly he answered that correctly now the boards again just to be clear of the board's finding here is of course separate independent from the board findings with respect to  fit the if i was recalling correctly again i don't think that there was fundamentally a dispute about what a person of ordinary skill in the ark was and that's why of course the board i think that didn't have a need to go into your determining what the person of ordinary skill in the heart would be they thought they didn't argue that the board somehow made a mistake and we make the point we didn't raise this in front of the well they what they say and it and towards the end of that section is that the board's analysis does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined now the above that they do say obvious mr requires a determination of ordinary scone and clearly that's blown away but their second part of their unit seems to be what mr paley's tried to square with and and that was well they didn't explain and i think that you know again the board here has as and songs we've afterwards that they plan right and i think that the board's decision here of course is depending on which i guess which which point we're talking about  just simply says claim eighteen depends from independent claim one doesn't remedy the deficiencies already discussed for independent claim one and that's their whole argument so i think the board goes through in respon arguments that fanatics actually makes and so similarly and will get to this point and i think it's another proceeding there are there are other places where they say full well the board didn't address this argument about this particular limitation when in fact they didn't make an independent argument with respect to that particular limitation they referred back to other arguments they had made about other limitations and the board of course addressed theirs head on and that's it that's a common pattern here in these proceedings i do want to come others or one of many of them i'm not aware of there being a want to one issue that's been raised with respect to any of these patents because as i said none of these patents are still pending in the in the district court or still at issue in different words and over that rate as far as i know i don't believe it was raised in the district court but i'm not one hundred percent sure of that i did want to come back to a point that mr paley's made with respect to  exactly without that there was a reason to to read that in and that's one of the point that i want to make with respect to a secure domain name server their whole argument hinges on the notion that they have disclaimed anything that they have disclaimed conventional servers and i think the court found that to be properly to be ambiguous if you just flip it around think about it from an infringement perspective for a second if they stop if you search with human friends because different points in this this occasion all of which are different that they say well if this is one example of possible additional functionality here's an example for another additional pop functionality but they're not trying to limit their claims to those  the word found that if they were serious about disclaimer just as the way they fell this with respect to secure domain name server it's found this with respect to virtual private communication virtual private network communication link if you're serious about this claim or you have a tool here in front of you in an ongoing proceeding and that is to end your claims of the board made that point at appendix one twenty seven and also at appendix one ninety eight the court has further questions on these i'm happy to address  does it mean but at some point if you know if you're there if you're the decider if you're the trier of fact you have to be able to rely on the on where the parties tell you the disputes are right i would i would agree with that but in this in this case we  still stand by the position we have with respect to claim the two we just think the court was just very didn't support didn't explain why the combination of the two references support the reject or the and with respect to perino with respect to reveal the secure demeaning service term is this positive if you look under both our construction which is the same as apple's construction that it pursued in just record you heard apple's counsel kind of run