that would have been labeled as an exhibit as an example the definition that we offered below i'm sorry i thought i get it i mean it's confusing the details i thought that was so merriam webster dictionary definition was accurately inserted into the record what of what was accurately quoted from that page of merriam webster whether it was accurate we don't know because that page is not in the record all we have to rely on conclude what the broadest reasonable interpretation is that's a separate issue from the separate doctrine chevron doctrine is that the board even have authority to consider and rely on its definition and the answer is no because congress gave its unambiguous our position is the board very clearly relied on it and from that appendix page seven the board said in the final decision a dictionary definition provided by petitioner for the word compress i e to press or squeeze together is reasonable consistent with use of the term tamper in the specification we interpret tamper to refer to an element that compresses i e presses or squeezed together coffee inside the claimed coffee holder so they introduced the definition provided in that reply and then use that to base their definition of them not from what you read they said they articulated what a party done but then they articulated their own definition and so your honor our position is that the press in your squeezing connecting that phrase tamping the only place that exists in the record is from that reply brief  so and then also in our reply brief you also pointed out in the patent office response they also make a causal connection between the introduction of this definition or claim constructions have to be in a petition so that's it that's part of the content of a titian is that the petitioner puts in their claim construction they also put in their evidence supporting their challengers of  rules were not followed because the definition associating tamping with the press or squeeze was in the reply it was not in the petition and that and that  brings up a case that the parties had talked about in their briefs the area osa case where a reference at issue there was in the petition and it was an exhibit and this court found  patent office erred in not considering it we agreed that case is very similar to our position in that we have a definition that wasn't an exhibit it wasn't in the petition and so it should not have been considered because of the rules of claim constructions being in the petition having your evidence in the petition which you can i just ask you isn't it right that at least  two maybe even only i know as to non technical terms that i would consider temperate tempting as to the non technical term that it's not unusual for example for this language terms too because other people have have thought about the right formulation of words to capture what we kind of intuitively know and we may as well use that form of words rather than have to think about yourself why is this different from that because you're sort of assuming and remembering right in general about you know that maybe not a frequent practice but not unusual perhaps so you honor i think the difference comes with the with agency off and it goes back to this issue that i think the board's position is well we got it right we construe the term correctly we take issue with that we don't think they got it right but but they got it right and were allowed to construe terms so there's no problem the issue comes with several doctors it's not an issue whether they think they've got it right it's an issue of did they have the authority to even consider it so i understand in other instances before the patent office where the federal rules are evidence aren't part of a proceeding there's some leeway there apply and so does the general rule that an appellate court is not supposed to go outside the record nevertheless on legal questions and to a very large extent claim construction is a legal question  at least again where non technical terms are used don't we i mean look outside the record in the sense that we can look at the full publicly available in ordinary english definitions i office the authority to conduct these i p r's and then they also have additional statutes governing what they do so when congress speaks unambiguously and here they have requiring unpin ability to be proven by evidence then the just doesn't have that we way they don't have room to interpret a statute that is unambiguous and written by congress so i think it's really an issue of admin law it's a it's a matter of could i do this the congress give me the right to do this and the answer is no so that's that's our position and on that  it just went with the common meaning of compress and if the board had looked at a dictionary definition judges have a right to look at dictionary definitions to define technical terms or to construe claim language so long as that construction or that definition doesn't contradict what's in the patent application so it's more like it had an intuition about what the term meant by an intuition didn't quite have the words for it when it saw those words in the dictionary definition it wasn't adopting those words because a dictionary informed it of something it didn't already know and then to it rather found words to capture an intuition that it already  a sense in which it didn't really i don't mean to sound i understand your negative about that formulation but it's a little subtle well i think i think it's right though if you look at what that word said so i got the impression they were saying we already know that right now because they had an people know what compressed mean that's not a complicated word and be more in saying ok when we see the stiction are great we don't need to look at it you know with that meat and so again the word didn't rely on it but even if they had they would not have committed any procedural errors because the dictionary definition wasn't being offered to sort of handle a fact in dispute it was just being offered defy to show this is an ordinary word and this is the plainer new meaning and so as we said in our brief it's sort of akin to just i think a pop ok here we have a dictionary definition everybody knows what it means let me just give you this definition it didn't need to be provided in an exhibit and the argument that it had to be in the petition also isn't accurate because the court's decision invalid in talks about rebuttal evidence is allowed to be considered by the  about still teaches a temper that compresses coffee so based on the board construction we believe it was proper the dictionary definition wasn't relied on even if it was relied on we believe that was also proper and terms of the issue of whether the border lied on the definition and i talked about what was in there in the citizen and then also in the board's brief and on this appeal i page thirteen temper to refer to an element that compresses i e presses or squeezed together coffee inside the claim coffee so there is that's what i was alluding to earlier about this causal connection that the petitioner introduces a definition the grounds or i guess that i can use grounds before it's if it's percolated anyway the dry stuff for a call from floating up in the water that's correct that's correct is that drip leaders don't use temp coffee and so why is that significant it's significant because claim twenty three talks about a coffee holder attempts coffee and it's in gauge will with a coffee maker the evidence below is very component as a tamper and also says that it can be used with a drip letter which doesn't use temp coffee and there is no other coffee maker identified whether in zhao or any piece of prior art below so separately it's you know our position was is that there were procedural errors the panels exceed his authority but as background they didn't get it right either in terms of concluding that and i think that's that's also one of the issues that that was going on below which was an analysis out independent of a drip later whereas claim twenty three compass is a coffee maker as well not just the holder