the head of the old contains the information the header field is the information it contains the information the and then in the claims themselves as well and this is claim one giving effect to all the terms in the claim right and that's right or so claim one expressed a requires the step of causing the controller to search for a destination point of the data in the routing table by using the routing channel number as an eroding table the routing channel number and running parameters right that right you're in and i think what that structure does is support the reading in which the head of the table excludes the destination point but it's only the destination point that is identified but it then and then you create redundancy because if with your argument the interplay of those claim steps to mean indicates it wouldn't make sense for claim ones method to save nine basically using the rounded channel number as an index to select the destination point right so it's only the destination point that is selected by the right engine number not ready to read them all together excuse me question as you read the pattern the takeaway seems to be the interesting twist of this invention is stripping out all of the data in the header of the routing parameters and just having a simple routing channel number and then you have a look up table routing table that has of the relevant routing parameter information for a given routing channel number being used as an index a claims i think this is overreading the use of that and think the cleaned up how would you like to describe what the inventive concept is communicated in the past well i think it is the fact that he uses the round table you used the round table is part of the purpose of the invention by narrowing the information in the header but it doesn't go all the way which is the objection here i think it does go all the way around here in the sense that what it does is it but that's the problem your honor is that reducing the header to a single number is never claimed and instead what others tell anderson are saying there is the and that and the argument is that the purpose of the invention requires that you reduce the header to the maximum possible extent and they're saying that while i b m does reduce it to some extent it does reduce it to the maximum  be a consistent with the purpose of the invention to eliminate that second number even though i b m does go part of the way to reducing the contents of that think you have accurately stated their position  claim that there's no question that i b m the routing channel number does help you get to the destination point but it can't do that standing right that's in the course so the question is how do we interpret this language does it mean that the routing channel number has to do alone or could have some other assistance and i'm not sure that the board's use of the term or construction of the term index really gets the board where it would like to go but what is the specification tell us about whether in fact the purpose here was to be able to do this with a single number without the use of another  you know in the library you can index books by author but it doesn't mean that there's only one book by that and if we look at page forty two of our brief there's no question and the diagram that the the green the claims don't claim that it got in here and then were i guess the second issue is that when you look at your proposed column of incoming d c i as you can have values that repeat in that table like the number one the value one can repeat so another concern that i understand the board to be making is that you don't have a unique label a given so called routing channel number well we always get to the right brad and channel number because first you use the p i that path right you have to use an extra piece of information where to look and then from the right channel number you do get one destination point and only one destination but i guess the concern i have with this view of the word indexes when i think of the word indexes it's supposed to be exposed to service this deficient shortcut to be able to easily access some other information and some kind of data file or something like that and what we have with your proposed index is a limited  amount of information that only reaches an ambiguous result but if you have a table with repeating values for your proposed index then when you see that number value one you don't know what you're looking at it and so let me give you just an analogy assume you have a p football team with one hundred players and they're all wearing jerseys but with numbers and if you send ten guys out on the field all of them wearing the number twelve then those numbers can't serve as any kind of index as to who those people are running around out there and how much they weigh and what position they play except or also you've you've defeated the whole is rubbing channel number does appear twice but you're not going to get to two different destination point you're going to get to the right destination point because the path indicator has told you which part of the table  save ten different documents i was working on all with the same file names one and then i look at my index and i see ten ones i don't know which one is which i wouldn't be able to table you're only going to get to one destination point one point and point three is the only destination point that's associated with writing channel five once you're in the alabaster and the question is is are aware where this is our page destination point with which is the associated and so it is used as an index as i just described there is nothing in the claim limitation in the claim language that excludes using something else as sort of a pre index to tell you what part of the table to look at and if i could just see some summarize in very quick fashion with respect to the third issue because we do have all three issues that's a classic example on page thirty three of the board laying out each party's position very very with one but they don't explain why and it's particularly disconcerting because in the institution decision they did the same thing laid out each party's position i have two thirteen and said that ours was persuasive and in the end the firemen decision they did the same thing they said ours is not and then they it's a non sequitur they point to we combined they also said that i move your expert is that they also said they did not believe your expert well that they don't explain why again they then lay out our position and then the why is that we didn't explain why how you would combine i b m and they can be but we haven't been talking about the at that point and there's eight pages of the petition reply in which we explain how page fifty one has a diagram which maps them to want it and there's no explanation of why that's not persuasive using something as an index from really mean that you have to go to a single destination for example if there's a biography of someone and there's an index for the biography they're going to be multiple entries for example if you look up the name graham there so why does index necessarily mean that it has to take you to a single place as opposed to help you and have a katie how to get to  that routing parameter that's one the second thing is that it's not just about index here it's what the index does in the client and the board noted that in its decision at a thirty to thirty one it's more than just an index it's an that will further reinforce your position on how i should understand indexes it's you can play with that right i disagree with that because i think that well then there's where would it be in this back door so i think the best place to describes an index column nine lines twenty five through twenty eight describes using the routing channel number as an index to find the destination point in the route into what language here tells us that you're so like i said our argument is based on the plain language of the claim that requires the index on the b r r why can't you use something else in addition to the rooty channel number to reach the destination because it can be used as an index to select the deficit and the board noted that the board noted not just that it was the nature of the index which if it was also the fact that the routing table stores these correspondences and then the correspondence are used to search for and select the desk if there are aren't any other questions on the index i'd like to move on to the one issue that has the most deferential standard of review because i think all the parties myths that the board cited it's evidence but it argues that the board didn't explain why it agreed with us instead of and x p we disagree because the board explained that a credit or expert over and have an x piece x where and more importantly that's enough under the law so the synopsis vs mentor graphics case from two thousand and sixteen explained that one of the board provided sufficient reasoning for an argument regarding whether the dr walker's testimony that was credited by the board the petitioner did not explain why it swapped out a path identifier for a point identifier in the routing table that it devised so that's that was the basis of the board's holding the board and x p we are going to mike dot your combination as you proposed it but even that combination fall short of meeting this claim and where did your expert say that that's all of the petitions expert at paragraph one fifty three pages you know this is a thirty one forty eight simply explaining that to destination points isn't enough my interpretation is they're saying that's all tissues expert and i've looked at the petitions expert testimony this stuff it's very complicated the points identifier and the path identifier but that's a different point i think they're absolutely related your honor because all the b b related but they're not the same point i mean the other words the board says all all the positions expert did substantial evidence supporting the board's decision is in dr walker's testimony is he walked the border through the problem with the a t m reference which is that the table doesn't include source and destination points and so what enix pete did that this is all d consider the evidence that's not of the board said the board said it at age twenty nine because a combination even if as proposed by put the petitioner doesn't mean its claim limitations we're not going to reach the issue of whether it would have been obvious to combine these two references in the first place so first of all there's two points here first of all reaching an issue and not considering evidence are two totally different things the board didn't reach the issue of motivation to combine it never said it didn't consider evidence and the court is presumed to consider the evidence that it is but this sounds like they're not reaching other than motion motivation behind it sounds as though they're not reaching combined ability exactly and that was a different issue than the one that's on appeal here so this was my second point is how did the different you write in to consider the context of the briefing to the board so there were many other arguments below that didn't reach the appeal there were three arguments that we made about the motivation or the rationale to combine we argue that a team was nominal this or we argued that a total way and we argued that there was no motivation to combine the references that's the issue that the board didn't reach but inseparable from this issue of whether or not the claim limitation is missing after what the board did was say ok and will spawn your combination argument but you still are falling short on this missing element here in the so once you understand th  saving in the routing table the source and destination point identifiers it's the third issue in the one of the disputes between the parties here is a legal one which is whether or not you need an express disclaimer a lexicographer i think the real question is what what happens with the what do we do with the word comprising the header field comprising the running do what the board we should do with the board because the board applied the correct analysis here at least analysis was that the purpose would be served by having more than the routing channel number in the header right that is one of the three different things that the board found that weighed in favor of the broadest reasonable interpretation excluding routing parameters see the drawing table they looked at three different things one it was the structure of the plans the claims require this routing table to store these correspond and then require looking up the destination point in the routing table it wouldn't make any sense to put them in the header if it's also in the running to that's like asking for directions when you know where to go but it really doesn't make sense in light of this one also is like making something more complicated when your point is to make more sense exactly your honor and that's the purpose of the invention and that's what the size of it he said that's a tough argument in terms of claim construction that it serves some of the purpose of the invention is simple to implement and does not require any long header fields if it doesn't say that doesn't require more than one number in the header feel it suits so and like i said it screws three things at the borderline it was the structure of the cla routing table because you already have it in the routing table you're going to look it up those channel numbers are excluded and that's actually a good point because that was a dispute that happened below is an expedient to more of our arguments into an argument that we were trying to eliminate al the header might include the information of the source point from which it's coming and i don't think that you can really take the claims of the structures as necessarily excluding that it doesn't need to that's going to which of the spec they pointed it's not question that our expert did explain that the path can be identified and the path can identify the and point the source point or the destination of course we know that that can be true as a general matter if you're at the airport and you're looking up at new york it's both the path that the plane is going to fly it's also the destination point and so there's nothing inconsistent with the path also identifying the destination review of the board under the a p a you it's only the board's rationale that can stand and so we need to know what that rationale is in the first really if they lay out the rationale and articulated by a party and say we really like this rationale  adopt it that's not enough they they have to they explain why again in the institution decision they laid them both out and they said that ours was the more convincing and of course they can change their mind but they have to explain why when in this opinion they seek to explain why it's a non sequitur they talk about we haven't shown how you would upper obliqua mind that we have eight pages that explain how you operate really combine them and they haven't explained why that is insufficient but it also is neither here nor there of whether any path can identify a destination point because of course it it can't it doesn't here port and it doesn't i b m and our expert explained that and they haven't explained why that's not