celebration base versus acquisition that the port ordering algorithm identifies the call in work so it's providing a series of ports and that the communication ports maybe reword this is claim one column twenty illustrative claim language doesn't include any reference to port numbers it is the only reasonable construction and that is because given that a poor ordering  so the first identifies the problem there are potentially sixty five thousand course that is seeking computer to attempt to contact and it says that dialing affords a slow process your own appendix one the only references in the specification to the poor ordering algorithm are generating a series of poor numbers the whole point of this invention is there are there's a very large universe of potential ports you could connect to their sixty five thousand and it takes in computer time it's a slow process to contact the port so you want an algorithm that will give you a meaningful sequence of four numbers deep activision way of the argument by not addressing it until the final clock or a from the caps so that they're not permitted to raise a new argument in the final reply proof so you want us to determine that there was a way until the reply from the position that activision talk is that poor ordering algorithm generates a sequence of quarter numbers ok but that's not entirely the case with respect all  says we have we're going to generate an algorithm for telling you which server to connect to smart clients says nothing about selecting work numbers doesn't the ordering of sockets necessarily to appendix twelve thirty eight now the way this is the way a client using smart clients seeks to connect to the servers it gets a certificate and the certificate you're the servers that are available to you and if you look on that page of the appendix the servers are identified without any port numbers so there's just a list of server names the algorithm in smart clients says contact this server force then the server then the server that's the only output of the algorithm after that server is identified when the client that attempts to contact the number that's used for all the servers but that's not done by the algorithm so the algorithm does not provide any port numbers that's why we're forceful is warranted in va dot has no impact on that concept is missing entirely from claim one claim one was drafted in the way to be extremely broad claimed one was drafted in a way to cover an instance in which each computer a number of portal computers are allowed and they each have a single port that is allocated and in that circumstance based on the plain language of the claim that communications port is the call import and so what the smart quiet show of smart clients shows and the instance in which services service specific hosts are reordered and what does that mean in the context of smart clients smart clients discloses that various applications can be run on the smart clients one is f t p they want to tell that and the experts both experts agree on forty but when you take that disclosure an interview of a dot when says you can implement a smart client wanted a nonstandard port you can reach a conclusion that it would have been obvious to do so you have to do that because ports are used to gain access to individual applications running on your computer if you think of it like this you may have a browser window open on your computer you may also be using e mail those two servers without reordering the ports you would not be able to find the application the chat application and smart clients therefore we submit that there actually is substantial evidence there is evidence that supports the notion that ports are  reordered when the smart clients application recorders and orders the servers according to load regarding the issue of waiver i just want to briefly mention that there was an argument in reply that the board was confused and that their argument was improperly viewed as pertaining only to exhibit ten twenty four there's actually two rationales in the board's opinion at appendix a sixty two the second rationale was to the extent that you want to exclude these other portions of the reply patent owner you haven't explained walk and that was our point but in any event it was directly response of this argument is all about the plain language of the claim argument made by the appellant in this particular case that there must be multiple ports on each portal computer that need to be individually reorders that claim suggests to the contrary and we think that the claim language control much very quickly your honour's there is nothing in smart clients or doc for that matter about reordering ports that are used for different computing services the concept is in there and that's entirely in order there's no citation  in any of the briefing of the record that concept being found in smart clients or for dot so what we're left with is us clients the purpose of smart clients and what it does is it generate servers there's no port information even associated with that and then after the algorithm generous a list of servers the predefined single quarter numbers add in the claim language itself the wearing clause at the end says that the communication horse can be reordered ports as is multiple so there have to be multiple ports that can be reordered and if you look in the file history at the evolution claims it was originally drafted only with communication ports there was a one twelve objective rejection where the examiner said some of the dependent claims refer to a particular port and then the if there was an amendment of one or more ports and the purpose of that amendment was to resolve that one twelfth discovered objection by giving an antecedent basis and that's the rejection and then appendix nine six three is the amendment and also appendix nine four five explains the basis for the in that are there any in questions