morning may it please the court this case involving means possible unction limitation in the form of decoding its which cause a signal to be provided in substantially unmodified form when a particular certain identification construction the corresponding structure in the prior are cannot be limited to only natural where the claim construction for decoding means requires more but the board lost sight of the claim construction instead getting mired in trying to figure out what microsoft that resulted in two reversible errors st the board improperly allowed microsoft to change its position from its position reply and nd and more critically by relying on only an entry decoder in the prior art where the claim constructions for decoding means requires more there was simply a failure to provide what is required of means a function else a structure to structure comparison there was simply no structure to structure comparison by the board and had they performed that they would have seen that the structure alternately relied upon by different solution did not match now this can be seen from the figures in the patent and books specifically figure two of the patent thirty five has this broader structure seventy six and it is described in the patent as requiring or having a number of elements it has the input seventy four it has a switch in unit seventy nine which brings these different pathways back together and brings them back together to an ultimate output eighty along the lines there's also an entry decoder seventy seven dollars and what may be an entry or all of those structures make up the decoding means as it done if i buy microsoft in the claim construction and as agree to by philips however what happened is that because it was determined that vendor accts could not provide a substantially unmodified signal going from the broad decoding unit they went down to only an entry decoder but if the claim construction requires more than an entry code or rely on only an entry decoder in the prior are simply does not work the structures no longer match specifically were to look at the appendix at seven sections as we can see there they've boxed around part of this and this is the input section and they bark box and other parts of this is the code section and then boxed in other parts that this is the output section and they said now board we want you to look at only the decode five patent includes the input section includes the output section and includes the entropy decoder seventy seven dollars all of those structures are included in the claim construction for means plus function term but in ultimately comes out of output eight where those pathways ultimate come back together if we are actually to compare things the unmap are looks more like this which seventy nine dollars it's where those pathways him back together what they tried to do is say ok we're only of the patent then you can't look at only the entropy to the x the only the output of the entry decoder event books there is a structural requirement here are you looking at the structures and not only did the board not do that properly it didn't do that at all brief and i quote the p t o may not disregard the structure disclosed in the specification corresponding to such means plus function language when rendering compatibility determination the board said only this we think microsoft wants us to record do we have that the that the other mapper be coached and was well on mapping dr castleman shown a microsoft technical dictionary that defined a coding and he agreed that the definition of decoding in the so i'm not being is one type of decoding in that it's putting the signals back together and the problem that that microsoft ran into is that they originally pointed to this block diagram seven it's at c then brooks has that coding means of the invention microsoft wants us to shade our eyes and not see anything but the entry code but a proper analysis by the board has to say does that energy code or match the claim construction for decoding and it simply does then brooks doesn't have by the time the signal pathways come back together and there's an exit of that signal from the overall decoding unit it is always substantially modified and in fact either you look at the entire decoding unit of figure seven of the pattern and brooks in which case you have a substantially modified signal if you limit yourself only to the entropy coder you no longer have a structure that matches what is clean because of the entropy decoder cannot believe that the board erred below we also believe that the board air blow by allowing microsoft to change its position in this regard in its original petition they simply said microsoft simply sa but quoted sections of vent broken and folded the language referring to be a map or indicating the importance of the a map or in the overall structure therefore what they originally relied upon was all a figure seven the decoding unit and only once they their mistake that the coding unit and and brooks cannot provide the signal did they change their position to say oh stop looking at the input stop looking at the output despite the claim construction of wiring me and initial input and the initial out and look only at the end of the building that was a change of position from the original petition to the reply and that is simply improper with respect to changing of the arguments along the case so that is another reason why the board's decision should phillips makes two arguments in testing this finding the st is that it argues that the petition relied on the a napper component as part of the decoding mean structure that is the only argument that phillips presented before the board disputing prior aground the record provide substantial evidence that supports the board finding that the petition did not rely on the map or component the board recognize that the petition began its analysis of the decoding means limitation by specifically recognize that the petition had specifically excerpted the relevant components of figure seven which were an id code unit and default in decoding pipelines the board also recognized that in addition to excerpt in the relevant components the and thirty three that clarifies this that the confusion that phillips is playing on is in the term decoder and in the term in decoding in the abstract in general and substantially unmodified in the abstract in general and specifically in the context of these claims with which deal with compression of data that has been transmitted across the channel the coding has a very specific meaning and that is different from mapping and mapping which are pretty and post processing operation they are designed to make data more adaptable to being encoded they are different from encoding philip nd challenge to the board's decision is that the board allegedly a failed to apply the proper test in finding that the coding means this is also incorrect the board recognize that there was an uncontested construction after recognising that there was an uncontested construction the board pointed to the specific structure invented rocks in the prior art the petition had relied on as meeting the decoding means limitation now just like the decoding unit seventy six dollars the agreed upon the specific structure and an rx that was it as you proceeded to describe how these components performed the claimed function specifically based on a control signal output from the i d d code units portions of a signal or ratted through either the default path or through the or thank you may please the court and here for the united states this intervene or to address the constitutional issues this court has now repeatedly how that there is no taking or retroactivity problem here in your honor i would like to touch on something the council said they said something that's correct that the board mapped the claimed function in the final incision it did do that it says there is this function but what the board did not do is map structure just because there might be an on a modified signal somewhere in a circuit does not mean that the board provides the analysis of what a coder decoding means is and is there a corresponding structure that provides a substantial what microsoft's attorney argues here counsel argues is that well there is some structure in there that someplace had an  unmodified signal but if you look through the final written so you'll soon know where where the board actually says ok you're pointing me to the entropy coder invent brock's let me see where the corresponding structure is in the path there is no analysis not regard because that require in the coding me at the to coding instruction this much with an entry decoder inside can we limit our analysis for the corresponding structure in the prior art to be only the entry code there is not a corresponding structure there and there is no analysis in the board in