does the seven eight nine that define arbiter and decoder and if so where  i'm asking because on page eight of the blue brave you say the memory interface includes an arbiter for selectively providing access for the first devices and the decoder to the memory  that burden shifting i'm sure it's impossible to understand these things unless you look at the pictures there's a very good picture on page twenty five of the blue brief it's an annotated it's a figure twenty one from the code or that's what they alleges it is the decoder of the memory that is shared is in red and that's item one tack in order for data to be transferred in real time so the to meet this claim limitation each component along that path from the decoder at one forty four d to the memory at one ten and needs to be able to operate in real time has to be capable of operating in real time so what is along that path you see the p c i bridge subset i don't want to have sex you also see another bus i don't number one zero eight which is between one of six and one cat so in order to justify a finding of anticipation what was required by the board was to answer specific questions and each of these components and  time and access the p c i bus when it is in real time no that was a very important question it's something we have a sort of a pattern a response we have a size that i spent several minutes on that issue at along the path from the decoder to the shared memory operate in real time and access the p c i bus when it is in real time mode there's no dispute that each of these components along the pa has the operating in real time mode in order to make this claim limitation i think if you're driving a fast car in a truck and you're trying to go one hundred fifty miles an hour each segment along the track has to be capable of maintaining that speed if you had a segment where they were doing some we construction and there was dirt with particles then it wouldn't be capable of sustaining that speed you go into a p would break you probably kill yourself and wreck the car so it's similarly here it's analogous to the principle of the way i drive it's analogous to the principle that each component along path between a decoder in the main memory has the operation real time old and what the void should have done was to ask that question for each of these components the board did not do that instead this is what the board puts in its final written decision here's what the board says there is nothing in reference to figure twenty one and heads corresponding description suggesting that when p c i bus one twenty is placed in multimedia mode multimedia device one forty four d is precluded from accessing main memory one ten an operating a real card that is improper burbage shift you know we get these arguments from the petitioners all the time when when they're rejecting their positive arguments as insufficient and say that's a burden should think that sentence follows positive statements from the petitioner declare that says exactly the opposite how is that burden should they when all the board is doing is saying we believe them not you because they didn't they didn't approach this issue with enough specificity in order well that's for us to decide that's not burden shifting we can look at their conclusion that considering wayne evidence right do you believe that that always shifts the burden to the other side no i would not say that seems to be what you're arguing well i was focusing on the statements in the final written decision but my argument isn't that the board the board's findings are not supported by substantial evidence my then you look at it as morse a specific thing that my argument is that the board did not make the findings that were necessary important issues well this is a substantial evidence case and of the board makes the conclusion that this discloses everything and explained it in a reasonable manner and it's supported by substantial evidence which you seem to arguments with respect to another kind of attention where there's a bus having us mission band with two unable to decode or to access the memory and operate and real time when the real device when the first the  understanding of what i took to be going on which is that the board looks at figure twenty one some of the language particularly in column twenty seven of figure twenty one and reads dr stone and concludes you know this looks like lamb brecht is teaching a use even in multi media mode of the the main memory and then you say you come back and say well one reason your back can't be so low is that there is something missing is it the modal logic or something p c interface like the interface like a look at the figure the argument out about a missing un claim component so figure six kind of tells us you don't read what you say is needed so it's not combining elements from fifty figure six to figure twenty one but using figure six as evidence that your counter argument to their reading of count twenty seven is wrong i understand what you're saying our argument is that lambert in the caves that you need this interface logic in the decoder in order to access the bus when it's operating in real time that's what's in there and that's missing from the p c i bridge subset for example and then they go to figure six and they say well and figure six it's not there but figure six is a very different e figure six has to hardwired busses it doesn't have a bus that can operate either and multimedia mode or real time so that's why it's not that interface logic is not required in figure six but it is absolutely required in figure twenty so they should not have been referring to figure six because figure success through hard wired buster so that shows nothing but the interface logic is absolutely required when you have a bus that has two different  drawing the court's attention to appendix twenty nine and near the bottom sufficient to say that there is an substantial evidence disagreement alone isn't enough scrymgeour to said that as well so the board made factual findings at the end of the day you palin made his arguments to the board they disagreed with them a lot of them had to do it can you focus not so much on that high level of generality but the very specific point about them and i'm going to use the shorthand and hope that you will unpack it fairly the missing interface circuit in order to make this work testified as you pointed out that labor twenty one and the figure twenty one discloses all the claim elements and that one of skill in the art when i understand it chips that one of the six would interface with the p c i bus one twenty one in multimedia mo take what's happening in figure one which had two separate busses and write one you did right to do just that let me try to identify my confused state of thinking maybe confused i took at one of their arguments was figure twenty one is nothing but so much and together the two things that are in figure one hand he church mode does only the thing that in figure one is is in two separate bust and there's a perfectly decent argument for saying that's you're over reading the characterization of figure twenty one where the spec says this is similar to figure one there's more than just putting together two things with each mode perfectly marry the two of us then i took it they had a separate argument a separate argument that says even if you were might otherwise read column twenty seven and what not to describe figure twenty one as showing multimedia mode that gets back to the main memory there's a reason you can't do that and that's because there are some technical piece  required in order for that to work and that technical piece is not shown i think the interface circuit are the words i'm remembering but i may be misremembering the words can you focus that second piece right that second piece  that's going on in their interpretation of what's happening with respect to one of six closed in that figure and how it operates with the bus one thirty in the bus one twenty and what's happening there at the court the board discredited dr testimony on our guard uncredited dr stone's testimony in that regard to say to one of skill and they are they would understand that that is in fact in and disclosed in lambert figure twenty one  of what was already disclosed and figure twenty one so it's not a putting in elements that were missing or supplying something that wasn't there everything is disclosed and figure twenty one the board instituted on figure twenty one and had a decision on figure twenty one exactly with respect to the real time i think there is no different claim construction is the same claim construction what more did is he put it in the context of the claim limitation itself which is the