issues will require a reversal of the board's entire obviously determination for all claims but i'm going to start with a claim construction the board refused to adopt appellants construction non contingent reserved concert theater and you had a set of general admission and they set a reserve the general admission seats are open and whoever comes in with a general admission ticket can randomly selected speed and the reserved section seats are pre assigned or pre allocated to specific people and so when i look at a reserved seat i can see someone who is i can see the seat i can see this occupied and i know who occupied assigned on the other hand there are seats that are in a section further back that are not pre allocated that way would that be a fair reading of what the board said it didn't have to be pre allocated in the sense of being pre assigned to individual mobile station but rather pre outdated in the sense of use for a particular purpose so i think what your honour's address is the board's characterization of stones code as being sort of reserved for handover or reserved for initial ranging as the board put it in to that extent i think your honor is correct receive a preallocated code as a base agent when i look at someone a seat in the reserve section i know he's sitting in that by contrast if i look at the general admission what do you think i just want to ask you i understand your position what do you think is the best what do you think is the claim language that supports your more narrow interpretation of the claims of the board's broader  interpretation i believe that they claim language is non contingent reserved access identifier and i believe that that claim language was chosen because it captures each aspect of pre allocated code as they are described in the specification that was  contingent people are not contending for the the the idea that they are reserved they're set aside not available for random selection and their access identifiers they identify a mobile device to a base they say that's what those words were meant to capture and i believe that's what they do capture especially read in view of the specification o asserts that regarding why lands argument that the specification describes pre allocated codes and randomly selected quotes as mutually exclusive alternatives based on the use of or as or as well as language was never raised before the p tab and is waived where do you raise that argument before the p to him so your honor we address that in our you referred to the that's where it is we use the exact same example and we said the specifications distinguishes so called open codes from the claimed reserve or pre allocated code which ties the exact same passage of the specification in column fifteen that we're relying on the nd problem with the the board's interpretation column fourteen is just wrong column fourteen is describing a situation in which the the mobile station has a set of pre allocated codes that is run through but none of them apply through that situation think of it like i've got a reserved seat in the pit in front of the orchestra but i want to sit in the balcony and i don't have a reserved seat in the balcony so i've got to go get a general admission ticket and randomly pick a seat up in the balcony if i want to sit in the back and that's what's being described in column fourteen you don't have a preallocated code that fits your situation so you have to go back to random selection of codes just like everybody else around so it's very straight mr strolled it exists where you're pointing out that the board erred and it's opinion page to thirteen were inserted the brackets pre allocated before the word code in column fourteen of the patent that's correct your hon to reject argument well that may be sort of correct but this is judge prost i'm sorry but as i think is pointed out in green in the patent office is brief the board kind of had an alternative conclusion right to support its claim construction decision and that was its reliance on this permissive language in the specification so even if we don't rest on the board argument that you've cited with compared to column fourteen there's still i don't know i hate to call it an alternative basis but the board is still to malice with regard to the specification in the print misapplying which led the board to conclude as it did in the claim construction so isn't that sufficient to true that the specification uses permissive language with respect to whether or not pre allocated codes can be randomly selected sided numerous examples in the briefs of a clear distinction between the two  examples but the point is the director needs of the the director nor the board pointed to a specific example that the the most contentious example the best example to the board can muster is the bottom twelve where it says the reserve codes are not to be randomly selected and the board says the board crossed that quote in its opinion and said well but look at this can presume earlier in the passage what that passage is actually describing is a situation in which we're telling mobile stations which section is the general admission section and which section is the reserved section and what it says is all we have to do with tell a mobil station here's the general admission section here's what you can randomly select from and you can assume that whatever is not in this section is preallocated it's reserve and so pre allocated codes are not to be randomly selected you don't go randomly choosing a seat in the reserves to action that's what that path instead the alternative is we can explicitly tell the mobil station here's the general admission section here's the randomly selected section and here's the reserved section it's reserved don't go randomly selecting in there so the only permits in that there is either we let you assume which section you're not supposed to be randomly selecting in or we can explicitly tell you what's reserved for pre appendix three to five and i don't see the answer to my question about mutually exclusive alternative space on the use of or as well as where was that argument  say the specification distinguishes so called open codes from the claimed reserves or pre allocated codes in contrast to the claim code specification explains an open coded purse to a code that will not be assigned to any particular subscriber stations that can be randomly selected by subscriber stations for use in a random access channel message so what it's saying there in that passage with citation to the exact same passes actually two of the same passages that we rely on column seven in college fifteen the thing is the pen is drawing a clear distinction between pre allocated codes and randomly selected codes and that's the same argument we're making now thank you your honor the broad language the broad plain language and permissive disclosure of the three hundred and twenty five do not support why lance position here and i think we agree with your honor judge pros that  you could affirm the the board's construction on one of two alternatives the st being that it's improper to import a negative limitation into the claim language in that negative limitation here is whether or not the reserve code is randomly selected by the mobile station and we've pointed out in the things great detail in the green brief all of the language throughout the specification i think we did in the footnotes thirteen through fifteen including those broad permissive statements in the code preallocation in subscriber stations sections of the briefs that would prevent this court and the board from importing such a negative connotation into the claims because there is no clear disavow there's no clear definition there i think moving to column twelve i think that's what counsel for a while and discussed a little bit and they pointed to that as further evidence of the vets especially teaches there is the claim language requires the importation of the non random selection by the mobile station into the claim and i think when you look at the actual language it supports the board here because in that language it says that the  code assignment module can presume that those codes absent from the usage type map represent codes reserved for prediction allocation and then here's where the kind of the fight is is what does that next phrase mean and it says and that the reserve codes are not to be randomly selected and i think the board is correct here and i think even the district court when they looked at this in the companion case found that that language that can presume language from the st part of that sentence needs to be imported and read into that phrase so that the assignment module is presuming can presume both that the usage type map represent codes reserve allocation and can presume that the reserve codes are not to be randomly selected this is not a definition this is not something that rises to the level to allow the court to order the board to import that limitation  into the claim language and i think your honor was correct in recognizing that that this is one of two different grounds that the board relied upon in support of its claim  two i guess extend the analogy that counsel for a while and provided in his opening argument what the board looking at town fourteen recognize that there would be a user or there would be a concert goer who would have four reserved seats but they were not told how which one of those four seats they had to sit in and so they could randomly select among that group of four seats that's been reserved for them and decide where they could sit in each one of those four seats and that's what the board said that the language at the bottom of column fourteen really means and that one of ordinary looking at that would read the embodiment to allow the mobile station when it has a set of codes that are stored in its memory that have the proper usage type then but do not have the specific semantic or one or or something without a semantic attached to it then it would be able to randomly select among those codes because those codes are available codes of the desired use of type and that's what the language in column fourteen teaches how you select those codes and so i think on either one of those theories this court can affirm the board's kind construction five where judge while i was asking counsel for the citation for where they argued that the claims were that the language was mutually exclusive again that language that disclosure and i believe that the court in looking at that would recognize that they did not preserve that that claim construction argument somewhere else where it doesn't have a seat so it has to go out and randomly select that is very clearly articulate in our brief but to the point about the permissiveness of the specification at the top of three runs one through five the specification says the use of pre allocated codes avoids the collision probability associated with random subscriber selected access codes that's not permissive in any way there's nothing permissive about it any of those passages we believe thank you ron thank you we thank both sides in the cases submit