cases said the correct angry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not whether the specification prescribes or precludes some broader reading of the claim term and that's exactly what the of the people who did here they went through the intrinsic record which they kind of mixed up at times but they were looking for the four way patent the specification to exclude out from hello and that's not the correct approach the correct approach would have been to try to understand what the pla specs were not really kept tell the very much in the spec except that the one specifically described embodiment the interior item as its own cover before you put it inside the the the outside cover it but it describes that in environments and so what we're going to actually do is look at what the evidence extrinsic evidence tells us about maybe not the plane but at least an ordinary meaning and we think that still material that's not loose milk like a you know a phone structure that you could sleep on but rest your head on anyway without putting  you care to that that is one reasonable it's reasonable to say that that itself is a pillow even if it doesn't have a cloth on it and your honor i think you hit on a bunch of different points right one is the specification does means can have a problem with a cover and someone by means can have a pull without a cover rather with the word said at appendix thirteen through one thousand is that the actual spec was amended for this very language and it that it doesn't broaden pillow to be only through material makes clear you know maybe a but should have been there but makes clear that apple can intended to broaden cover fifty who are to include only a single panel cover so there is no traditional right pillows include covers and fill material with it now if that was the only intrinsic evidence right that's the only intrinsic evidence the board recognized right but it was other intrinsic evidence that the board misclassified as extr this was prior art that was cited in the file history in coom or the federal circuit back in two thousand and three made this clear that's intrinsic evidence and that should have been considered as well and here we have a you know we did not consider it all or just pillows and that the pillow has a cover and fill material consistently inconsistent with the four weeks back the board did analyze that information but of course you know in the wrong pocket right the board was considering it as extr is what the board said when it was going through and just just just to be clear since except during your view at least by assumption that this is part of intrinsic evidence and this is a matter that we can consider on our own so it doesn't really matter if the board miss consider that we need to consider it for its proper effect regardless we would agree that it should be given its proper weight and and put in the proper demonstrates that the board recognise what the one people patent top one warning scheme your but because the board was applying the most standard it discarded this reference because it found it to be a non limiting example  and eight patent specification in the written description would have been as well as the one hundred and thirty four pan would have been a pill that included a cover and film material but to go to your other point your honor the fly reference which is one of the references in the ground is also intrinsic evidence in this case and the prime reference is an exe has really great language in explaining what a pillow and appendix eight o five it says fabric allowing an opening for the filling the resulting cover with filling material so frying the very reference there a lying on is intrinsic evidence and it makes clear a couple  different things that there's the pillow in the film material are two different things and they're used exclusively and consistently as two different things that a pillow is created by placing the film material inside the cover and that  material not a pillow now again the board through this reference in the extrinsic evidence pocket and that was improper and incorrect but i think what's more egregious here is that the board failed which one of the most important pieces of intrinsic record was left on al neither party relied upon neither expert testified about and there's no surrounding understanding of what want to bring skill in the art would have understood that definition to me and the definition only says any pillow shaped locker support as the court was going through this what did the court say about this at appendix fifteen says we know but the only definition of the record that relates to fill material that is not loose is exhibit two one thousand and three dollars s and the pillow shaped locker support and then the work comments that that which is also consistent with the teacher's interpretation but again the board's going through all the evidence there was other dictionary definitions and they all required to cover and fill but the word was looking exclusively for non loose fill material to see if somehow pillows have excluded that from ever being considered and that's just fundamentally the wrong approach it's wrong as a matter of law and in fact in the entire analysis or there was unfortunate mistakes about which evidence fell in which bucket but it also leads to a certain kind of absurd results one being that the pillow the definition of color changes based on the field and that's unusual right a pillow has a art it's the components of and i think you know your honor your your last point was about resting your head that's the function of i think that's what we do with a pillow but it's not what a pillow was directed to a pillow cover having an opening in one can or the panel that's covered by both a poorest patch and a filter so as to allow for airflow while at the same time preventing the entry of contaminants such as dirt and oil how importantly your does not dispute any of these proport inventive features and indeed that all the limitations of claim twelve are taught by frying view shelvey except for one claim term pillo and their argument for why it does not teach a pillow is based on an improper narrowing claim construction that seeks to limit the claim term pillow to being just a quote standard pillow having at least its own fabric cover fill material contained therein it beggars proposed construction is telling because their own construction recites that the claimed pillow should be a standard pillock that has its own fabric cover so its own construction tacitly admits that it's a standard pillow that would have its own fabric cover and that there could be other presumably nonstandard pillows in bed years view that would not have their own cover such as solid memory so it's very clear that bidders construction is seeking to read in limitations into the claim language now importantly the standard that's being applied here is the broadest reasonable interpretation we're not applying philips because this i r was handled before the patent office changed its rules to adopt the philips standard now importantly the intrinsic evidence here does not support that years construction to seek to inject this requirement of a standard pillow that has its own cover and importantly as you noted in the briefing what this construction is doing as the board noted is it's trying to require of the claim language which already recites a pillow cover it's trying to inject a requirement that there are two covers even though the plain claim language only recites a single pill now as we noted in the briefing beggar could have expressed the reciting of in the claims that the pillow comprises its own pillow cover but they didn't do that bigger could have acted as its own lexicographer if if the term pillow had such great importance to the invention they could have defined the term pillow and saying its pacifically is limited to a so called standard pillow having its own cover did not do that bigger could have also in describing the pillow in the specification always described as having its own cover but it did not do that therefore it's inappropriate to read in a limitation that's not present in the claim language and importantly even the specification itself doesn't describe the pill it was being a quote standard pillow or a conventional pill and as the board expressed we found behaviors proposed construction now in the proceedings below that you have argued well that that could mean it's just saying and somebody minced or fifty four has a st canon so as to suggest that there are other embodiments that were the cover fifty four has two panels and importantly the board addressed this issue and i don't believe bigger is continuing to urge this issue but with the border noted is that during prosecution the specification was actually express that's described and it makes clear that that's present in some embodiments and importantly the board went on to notes in his decision that even pillar twenty four dollars itself is just an example in the pat so the patent states a column three lines eight dollars and nine dollars that a pillow such as for example pillow twenty four of system ten so even pillow twenty four even if we assume that every embody minutes below twenty four was described as having its own four even if that were the case it would still be improper to limit the claim pillow to that because the patent makes clear the pill twenty four dollars itself is just exemplary it's just an embodiment and the board explicitly noted that  in his decision and importantly bidder's expert testified that before a weight patent can be used with any pill it's not restricted any agreed the pill or twenty four dollars is just an example that's described in   counsel for big year has argued that the board committed error here by bucketing this supposedly very important evidence as being extrinsic evidence rather than importantly there's nothing in the board's decision that suggests it was somehow discounting the one hundred and thirty four patent or the fry reference as being extrinsic evidence and therefore we're giving it less weight they didn't do that all bit your can say in any event it doesn't matter because the board found that the one hundred and thirty four patent fry actually don't support big years construction because what the one hundred and thirty four patent specification says is that the use of the pillow made typically inventor in a piece of intrinsic evidence a sighted reference that said that typically pillows have their own fabric covered not that they always have them or require the same thing applies for the fry reference  reference states that pillows are usually constructed of a fabric covering in fill material again they usually are they are not always constructed in this manner and they're not required to be constructed in th even if the board somehow misclassified the one hundred and thirty four pattern fry is extrinsic evans which we don't believe they did but even if they did they didn't proport to discount it and this evidence actually demonstrates that years construction is improper so if anything if we were to classify it as intrinsic evidence it elevates the importance of this evidence which demonstrates that construction is is improper that and there is certainly more than reasonable evidence that allowed the board to reach its conclusion with regard to the extrinsic evidence starting st with the dictionary definitions now you're has raised the issue with the fact that the piece of evidence that they themselves submit a dictionary definition which included a definition of any pillow shaped locker support they take issue with the border lying on a piece of evidence that they themselves  submit there's there's nothing improper about doing that they certainly invited the board to consider that definition because they provided it to the board whether big your argued it or not is irrelevant it's evidence they provide and importantly even amongst these definitions we again see the word usually right usually a fabric cover is is stuff with soft material for a pillow usually and importantly the expert testimony here including the testimony of beggars own expert i think is some of the most persuasive evidence the board consider the years expert incredibly testified that solid memory foam in a cover would be understood to be a pillow but when you remove that cover it all of a sudden ceases to be a pillow because you've taken the cover off and when asked why why is the memory foam no longer a pillow when you take the cover off you testify well it can absorb moisture in contaminants and this would cause deficiencies well that may make it a dirty pillow but it's still a pillow at that point and as the board expressed we found the record quote does not indicate why solid memory foam even it even if it can absorb undesirable substances fails to benefit from the advantages of cover twelve of the four weight pads were be a block or support and as we noted in the briefing  indeed a piece of solid memory foam that did not have its own fabric cover would benefit even more so from the invention write it cover that has a opening for air to go in and out but has a poorest patch and a filter to keep contaminants from going in a piece of of memory foam that doesn't have its own cover benefits even more if the memory foam already has its own intrinsic cover inside  of the pillow cover in other words two covers really needs the invention much less because it's already has an own intrinsic cover so as the board noted that the fact that a piece of solid memory foam can in along the pillow to be removed and the board concluded this is at appendix twelve or thirteen that a pillow comprised of solid foam would enjoy all all of those benefits so there is no reason why that that fry taught solid foam the board's decision is sufficiently clear on that point because it concludes that its claim construction encompasses solid foam material and it destruction of the term below we've laid this out in detail in the briefing the construction of the term pillar was at issue all the way back in the past known as preliminary response in the institution decision the board made it clear that the claimed pillow not require its own cover this was heavily litigated throughout the course of the proceeding bigger had made arguments about loose fill material not itself constituting a pillow so big year was fully on notice that  construction of the term pillow was at issue and that there was a dispute over whether there was a dispute regarding solid versus loose bill  d by not providing any substantive argument in its opening brief and instead just purporting to reserve preserve such a challenge without actually raising it and that is waived pursuant to this court's opinion and smith kline  thank you your honor starting with the fry reference having and we disagree with that and i think i'm sure the panel's looked at the decision and it's clear that the board did not make that finding but just restated its claim construction holding but if you did then that means that frye disclosed the song the film is film material and not a problem so the very reference the examiner saying has a go that far never says fly has a solid block but now going back to everything we've heard we never heard what's the plan in order i mean we heard usually typically these are somehow now bad words they're actually words that we submit that when those words are used they are evidence of what the plain an ordinary meaning is and they should be used against a pattern them as non winning examples and and this really goes to what in ray smith the court said in in recent that said following the logic that counsel is proposing and the word employed any description short of an expressed definition or a disclaimer in the specification would result in an adoption of the broadest possible interpretation of clean term that's that's not the it's a broad it's reasonable interpretation in line in the specification and we submit that was not then here we got the broadest possible we can get the broad is reasonable and and i think just the last clea because in the same way it doesn't say it can't it has to have a cover it must have a right it is the find to have a cover always has a cover it doesn't say anything about the film material either right it just lays out how to use in the term