may please the court the issue in this appeal is whether either of true references snodgrass or hurt discloses what the oath for four and five six eight patents refer to as a security the p tap in correctly concluded that what snodgrass refers to as an arbitration number and what her to refers to as a random number qualifying security keys and that both references therefore anticipate the five six eight zero four four pat says because the board was in correct the ology respectfully request that this court reversed the findings of invalidity i would like to start just by asking you know at procedural question something we've got to delved into very deeply i understand that the court has requested briefing from parties and other cases on this issue i think it's our position that we can perceive that the court does have jurisdiction and that the fact that non instituted claims are not part of this particular appeal does not prevent us from going forward i believe those may qualify as final you know final judgments by the p t they were the finality was at the at the institution stage so i the construction of the claim at issue the terms of issue there's really no disagreement as to the construction of the term security which is really the heart of the case the board and the parties agree that  to something in memory i've not sure that's what the board frowned i think the well what i think what the board my understanding with the board said it's something white access to memory happens in snodgrass after the arbitration number in discussion with the board on this is that checking the arbitration number is a prerequisite to gaining access to the text memory but then it's not the same is actually having the number get grants you access to the t arbitration number in snodgrass does not act as a password what it do is doing is identifying the tag it wants to talk to and by doing it some point the process that process yes access to the memory will be granted but it's not klan claim language is that the security key says based on the security so it's some point the security key has to act on what's in the tags memory and that's that's the based on in the example we give in the paper it says it turning on my computer it is not to give me access to secure files on the computer i have to put in a password the same thing here the  security keep particular number that is used to grant access to memory without that number memory cannot be accessed or putting it in a positive there point the number is what gives you access to memory that's not true i the arbitration number does not give access to memory yes at some point the process memory is accessed after the random number of or the arbitration number is validated but it's not the validation of that rant of number arbitration number security because it doesn't create gain access it doesn't grant access to the member it's not gr that payment transaction occurs whether it's in the memory whether it's something else but it is clear information in the memory of the id tag and her cat is that access and shared with  it's some point it may be heard it doesn't really talk about memory it we don't know where the contents of the id and the payment information is in her to actually so i think if there's very little the talks about the random number i think i'm mentioned once or twice and passing it doesn't say what the random number does or where it's stored and there's no nothing about where idea information of payment information is stored so we don't know if memories  claims but are any of those claims not also found invalid in view  based directly on construction the the board found that the matching arbitration number and matching random numbers and so neither for her is required is a necessary condition for memory to be printed under any your password is no longer security because you have to try to keep it so you would still say access your computer is based on your password even if there are other conditions that may be required so i think that that analogy just does not work joint if i may quickly address couple of points if i think the way to think of whether the security cheap it's actually providing access to memories to think of it this way access to memory under occurs because the security key is checked invalidated under either snodgrass or heard of the tanks memory is not access because the arbitration number or the random number is checked invalidated under those references that memory does not happen because that that number is checked invalid other things happen before the memory is access to them and then just quickly talking about purpose in function the way we're using that to they're the same we're not talking about a situation like in schreiber where you have a new use of an old product here we're saying that the claims themselves talk about something that has to happen the function here that there has to be a checking invalidating of the key to gain access to memory that is part of the claim language that has to be part of what security key and which in our contention is that neither the arbitration number in snodgrass nor the random number in hurts it does that function and therefore they cannot be