good morning everyone the panel has before the court cases two of them are being submitted without oral argument on the briefs later today they are appeal number zero seven dash thirty forty eight shelton versus merit system protection board and appeal number zero seven thirty one fourteen lynch versus department of the army on the argument list we have two cases and we'll hear arguments first in appeal number zero six session hundred ninety nine in board that there was never a final judgment in the case before judge sparks so i understand the case was settled so that it was an initial ruling but put no no judgement so how can there be have a vote in the orange over case and in the transect case there was a final judgment and that has to be the key that oral argument right no your honor the what what the the government argues that in any event judge sparks never gave the construction including the notion of a ratio of one for one and the ratio one for one seems to be critical of the board as saying we're going to rule we're going to go with the defense on this war because there was one to one correlation however under the circumstances and based on this record the order to persuade the phrase as a function of the reservations as the same meeting is responsive to the one for one ratio john that's inside and who have an implied claim construction have never heard of such a thing he lists all the disputed phrases at the end of his order any give the construction for each disputed phrase in one of those constructing the can you find the one for one radio id well he says direct response so let's see well the directory doesn't necessarily mean one for one ratio i directly responsive to an inflation index if i always multiply the inflation index by point none or i always multiply the inflation index for the drive is response what we need to find is directly responsible in fact the definition right here given by gorgeous american heritage dictionary without any longer anything intervening now  differentiation between the breath so that it necessarily contemplates something that's broader than the ultimate correct construction that a district court in litigation may conclude so if it's known to be less accurate overbroad and you have a circumstance we may not have it here but let's assume you do have a circumstance where you have a district judge correct construction then what why does it make sense for the system to use the more accurate of the two available construction the p questioning and i'm questioning that exactly my point is why isn't it better policy more logical more accurate more dependable better in every way to use an authoritative litigated construction that's purports to be the correct construction rather than an admitted leap over broad construction well when you have both available why not use them what i do know is more accurate your particularly in a reexamined receiving where under your theory a different construction to get a different result in the resume proceedings from the district we had some choice and in a hypothetical case where you had a final judgment suppose that a final judge affirmed here in a difficult case yes your so the correct construction of the district court has agreed to by this court review under your argument the p t o can nevertheless cast aside that affirm correct construction and use and it's much easier for the p t o because it makes it obvious is easier to prove an overbroad construction why does it make any sense to face entirely different set of circumstances and really sad a nation simply doesn't make sense it's not logical because then you're put into the difficult situation of having to do to face