court has had to remind the patent trial an appeals board the broadest reasonable construction standard is not the broadest submitted construction standard but requires the claims to be construed recently re the claim language in reasonably in light of the specifications in this case the board again violated those rules in a dr they brought actually two different brought an unreasonable constructions that caused the threshold telephone call signal of any value it found that the smith referenced anticipated in contributed to the obviousness of the skullcandy claims under a correct and reasonable interpretation of the claims that reflects what we've called in our briefs the board's first claim construction which is to say a certain amount associated with a signal that is to say distinct from the signal itself that may trigger an interruption of another signal and that certain amount of the tape under that instruction the smith reference does not decision concluding that the board which had previously concluded that the set reference did not disclose any type of threshold value and not sufficiently construed the claims this case was then returned to the board and the board issued a decision that had in in the words of our petition for rehearing in the in front of the board not one not two but three different claim constructions and we've set those out in detail in our brief here's what page eight of the smith reference right and to that point the only construction that was actually apply of the three constructions that were put forth in the opinion was construction number three and i want to explain to the court why construction three in particular but also construction two which is really of a piece with that one is incorrect we start of by saying why construction number one is the correct one it is reasonable it in the words of the is directed to a particular electronic mechanism that receives signals and so the end of cd to the threshold value is the second audio signal is characterized by a threshold value so what is the value be listening to the radio or to a pot castro or something like that we received a phone call and the phone call usually will interrupt sometimes however you find yourself having driven to work and got a message on your phone because it didn't interrupt i don't know why that is i don't i can't say why that is with my phone but it does seem to me that it suggesting that the phone is not reaching the threshold value or the signal is not reaching the threshold value inside that phone to interrupt the signal but all th court has in front of it today is the question of reasonableness of the constructions and ultimately construction number one in there isn't a whole lot of magic to the trip threshold value that is a threshold value of the second receive si now if i can just walk through the two constructions of the board that were ultimately applied the second construction came out of a general purpose dictionary and that construction was a quantity or amount in which the stimulus for signal is strong enough to be perceived well that's going to individuals perceptions there might be a sound of decibel level for example that meets the threshold for human hearing but or doesn't meet the threshold for human hearing that might mean for dogs hearing for example but that doesn't have anything to do with the a way that construction number one is not construction number three was unreasonable for a similar but different reasons that construction which was a level in which the second audio signal is detectable by a user again wrong because it's focused on the human user instead of the six the coupling device the signal processing and signal receiving art we're talking about here in these claims but moreover it's based on an understanding of   which in turn cited a supreme court case that deals with the rare situation where the claims in the above embodiments are strictly coextensive that's the language of the orse decision that's the language of philips or in the which was an in suit in the prior case contains a number of claims none of which contain threshold value limitation so this there's a reason that the specification of these embodiments are written in the way they are and the reason that threshold value  information isn't in column two as generally applicable to all embody but because it needs to be at all fees and that's the course this court's decisions have made very clear that not every claim has to read on every embodiment and there's no reason point because any second audio signal that is received will necessarily be strong enough to be perceived were detectable exactly scuse me that's exactly the opposite of what's correct for example if i were to ask mr jones in a very quiet voice if i could aural his stand and whisper over him and ask in that way you this court would receive the signal but you would not perceive it there is a  idea that perception in reception or different in the point that the board was getting at is that the signal needs to be percy ved not just received another example one hundred years ago or so albert einstein postulated about gravitational waves we've been receiving them for ever well before we got here we only percy ved these waves i think last year sometime a hundred years after he postulated that these things existed so the i think counsel mentioned he gets a call in his car some time and sometimes he doesn't get it on he doesn't hear it ring in the car it doesn't interrupt the music that's playing but instead goes straight straight to voice mail i think that's a perfect example where the phone in this case received a signal a phone call but it was not a good enough quality to be percy used and as a result went straight to voicemail and made a decision and made a decision that it could not act on this signal and because it could not act on the sick it had not met a threshold value and said it had not met the threshold value did not interrupt the music the perception level is going to have to be different from the reception level is not true i think that the board came to one construction which follows the three constructions that council has been putting forth and we make that point clear in our we make the point clear in our in our papers i can read that too if the court likes but our interrupts the music in fact that's the entire point of the invention right you don't want the noise to interrupt your music you want a signal a phone call that you can actually listen to and i think i just thought of this this morning  for example i live in california and earthquakes in california and p g me made me up to my gas delivery device a meter that will shut off the gas line at the time when there is a threshold value in other words a perceptible earthquake at a particular when you don't want to happen is every time there's a little rolling your gas bill right so you have here is there's got to be some actionable level at which the music will get cut off because the phone call isn't good enough quality to be able to be acted upon not go straight to voice mail actually be answerable be answerable above the noise level be answerable at a level that you can actually use the information that's coming for from the other side so that's our are of us to why perception and not reception is the key issue here and those are very different things there are a couple of issues that are raised in the briefs that counsel do not raise and i in its second construction what we call the second construction undetectable in the third construction quite frankly i am a bit at a loss to understand my friend's distinction between reseed and percy percy eve is a drawn to anything that has to do with how a human being perceives the cid it has everything to do with how the electronics reacts to the signal and if you look at the smith reference for example the smith reference which some actionable lead that is separate and apart from the signal itself so if my friend is right that some action of a level is the proper understanding of perceived and received then we should win and we should win because