page fifteen which is the words final written decision they recognize toward the bottom that we are giving particular meaning to the claims they say and forty one the board asking about what actually needs to be required here and there the petitioner had been arguing that our position was that the  storing needed to happen immediately after the event and i was being questioned about that and we can see outlines for the th team here it's giving the view that causation is what's required by the claim and the board and it's final written decision  page appendix page twenty we can see here again the board is starting to talk about the positions between them part is the petitioners taking this immediately of course the core of your argument seems to be articulated on  three of the great britain in which you say that your claim construction argument from way because your quote claim construction positions on appeal are consistent with your positions about obvious before the board correct yes there was before the board there was not nor my correct and that's sort of the core of what you're saying yes you say well neither party presented expressed definitions to the board quote in the entertainer vs who case this is cited in our very brief pitchfork and that case actually addressed a similar situation where there was not any explicit claim construction below then in that case because it was affectively the same argument that was still occurring even though it had changed into a claim construction argument that was deemed not waved that's the same situation and that  see that yes we did we did not formally propose crime construction below but there was clearly a dispute between the parties about the meaning of this in response to language and whether it was something that needed to be immediately happening if you say something is plain meaning right yes and the other side said plain meaning and you don't ask for a claim construction all you're saying is this is the plane meaning you're not asking for a plane or you're correct so our position here though is that although we were arguing for a plain meaning they were arguing for plain meaning as well when we got to the final written decision and the board wrote the decision down as to how the prior to the claims in doing so it became apparent that what the board was doing was not the plain meaning any reasonable meaning any way that in effect that kind of gone off the rails and ignored the language in the clams and that we can see this in the board's decision that toward the top of the page here is talking about the storage that is happening and it says and this is about  has it lines down or so that stores the updated data as part of their remote players log file come out while the player plays games and again this shows up on  one toward the top of the board pointing out that one also updates blogs this information while the player plays the game and the problem with this is that the player in one does not play the game in response to the give back that was identified by petitioners and the board the access and bre x us we know this because  if you look at figure five of the walking reference and this is a figure that was identified to believe in that the petitioner's you can see it so five o eight that says open player logfile for game server wager amount players take an average waiver you say that the p tab is wrong in its determination that one discloses updating the user profile when you want to the event i mean   so one teaches a story to users location in a user profile it specifically discloses its apparatus collects statistical information regarding the location of a player as part of large file for each player it teaches updating that user profile by storing the user's location in response to an event it's pacifically discloses its apparatus me interrogate the location of the remote gaming machine particular location so the event here in the claim is an event where the particular location is determined and in the one reference the only place that that is alleged to have happened and as the board found is when it is checking to determine whether there is jurisdictional allow ability to be able to do the gaming if that's the that's the occurs and events any suitable event that can trigger a change to to the profile information such as the occurrence of a particular day or week so on claim one doesn't require a the change of day or change or wig may be an event but in claim nine the event in addition to that would also need to include the determination of the user being in a particular location because that is what is required in column twenty eight around line twenty there is to go before euro opening session closes i want to ask you one question please the last yes are you saying that there is any kind of a to get a better fix on that from my standpoint you saying there's a there's a time requirement in there in terms of immediacy or you saying that day cannot happen more than one or two or three steps down the road so it's me how do you what do you really mean when you say in your view the in response does have to be right away or can it be a ways off or can  be intervening events how do you define the story i'm saying yes in our view is not a timing issue it is not whether other events may occur between it is a causation issue it is an issue of is this something that when it happens when an event happens well it necessarily cause the storage to happen and the reason that we are saying that is the specification that differentiates between different types of triggers this is at the clinics seventy one column five hundred and twenty nine to thirty two and some of the things that specifies as  possible triggers are events on the one hand or happening at different periods of time so intervals as with the petitioners are referring to are the occurrence or some other user activity so it's differentiating specification time best things versus you have an event that triggers something else to happen so for you saying it has to be a triggers caught you in your view causation is the key factor yes causation is the key factor and that goes back to that all this matters is that if you look at the access reacts of an excess of bands that were relied upon by the board these are not things that cause any storage to happen instead of going back to that figure five again and one you need to be st playing the game in order for any of these profile updates to occur in order for and his storage to occur you have to actually be playing the game and this is kind of like the door example that we give another a part of you can walk up to a casino the door can be open that means you have access you are able to walk in but that doesn't necessarily mean that you would ever walk in or that you would ever play the game and that's the situation that we have here at the prior art never gets to the you actually would do the storage because it's possible that somebody shows up in a location it's deemed that they're legally in that location but then it stops they never actually play the game they do something else for you  are asking for a very specific construction and this is on page thirteen of the gray brief they say claim nine requires a location based triggering event in which a user is recognized as three in the grave or no construction was indeed it wasn't the confident that the concept of what is in event was not raised there were a lot of arguments around whether the storage of the location information was in response to and the patent owner below referred to it as the alleged event but that was the framing of the argument does the location data is the location data stored in  alleged event the nature of the event was never challenged by the patent owner much less with a specific instruction before the board and here we have the appellant coming to this court asking for a very specific instruction and in fact  not correct because it reads out as i said a number of the disclosures of what an event can be in five when a patent and i'd like to just go there your honor is already read from it but in the fifty one  and fourteen dollars maybe any suitable event which can serve as the trigger i'm not going to read the whole thing but you're on the soft days of the week hours of the day i mean these are things that aren't even related to these are there are just passage of time if we go on and i'll highlight on down in column nine it lines twenty three dollars to twenty three dollars we see the end event may be the start of a tournaments or a sporting event if we look contemporaneously with our current time it could be the start of a super bowl would be the event and that event is a suitable event because it is something that can trigger the remainder of the of the requirements of claim nine so if we look at claim nine and just take the super bowl as an example of an event can go through all of claim nine by focusing on the limitations that are in dispute the system could recognize an occurrence of the super bowl where in part of recognizing the occurrence of the super bowl comprises and i think that comprises very important because it's just saying the recognizing of that event can include or will include based on location data determining the existence of a user at a particular location now would jump down to the next limitation and based on that determination of the existence of the user in a particular location initiate a gaming session so the super bowl has started we're going to enquire from the mobile device what the location of the user is and determine that location and if they are in a legal jurisdiction where betting is permitted that user can then bet on in game activities at the super bowl and initiate a gaming session as part of that the claim of the specifies the location is stored so you have a trigger being the super bowl you have a sequence of events that flows from that including location determination storage of the location and then if appropriate in that jurisdiction where the user is located initiate the gaming session that's the way claim one works and what the appellant is asking you to do is to read out those viable  wholly inappropriate for reasons of waiver it's wholly inappropriate for reasons of claim construction and it is really the appellants only challenge to the teachings of law is this waived argument t v in response to your question how exactly does the super bowl information get updated just the computer there knows of the superbowl is going on and it just how does that work exactly yes i mean in response you use the example of the super bowl is that as the event correct we know the super bowl start at six hundred and thirty dollars how does that what is the computer do how does it know that because you're so it's not different than the days of the week exam your server would be monitoring the passage of time these are the events every reste tuesday have we reached the super bowl or the server would recognize that as an event that is occurred and then interrogate the mobile device give me your location  at that point the location is sent to the server the server can determine based upon that location information is gaming permitted in this jurisdiction are in new jersey for example so in that in that circumstance the server monitors for events how does it for event i don't know that specify the club they wanted but it you're saying you just can do that in other words the super bowl i'm sorry i mean the the the server is sitting there in the casino say correct and it can somehow determine all right the world series starts today or the kentucky derby starts today or whatever correct o interesting i mean you can have play by play you know is the is the runner going to go fifteen yards this it's amazing what they're doing now that i digress from my my argument on the on the in response to argument again  is really the same thing as the five when a patent it was it was an access restriction device and fundamentally what claim nine is it's also an access research restriction system it is checking the jurisdiction to make sure that gaming i legal and in permitting or initiating that session in response to a determination that it is legal that is exactly what the disclosure of wong says and again in response to it's it's not you've heard it's not a timing restriction it is is there a trigger and that trigger leads to a series of of occurrences that result in the player being allowed to participate in a gaming activity long as as fully noted i would just refer the court to  final written decision and it really spans from pages eighteen through twenty one of the final written decision to the board address this issue just just head on i mean it it asked the specific question of whether it was in response to it walked through paragraphs thirty three paragraph forty nine paragraph fifty of wang and made its factual findings that that series of events was occurring including the stories of the location data was occurring in response to the event of a user trying to access the system to initiate a gaming session and that is that disclosure in wong is it just the lines almost one the one with the fifty one  specification so the two to say that the death disclosure is not consistent with claim nine and again you're reading out the fundamental nature of the fifty one a patent in so doing your own if you i wanted to i'm going back to the waiver issue  in terms of support the way we can also point to harris coker says erickson kiss that's a case where the claim construction changed slightly between the court bit between the two proceedings as it went up and because the same general concept was there it was deemed not with now i did hear yes we did not to expressly say this is claim construction but you are arguing about the cause of it being causation and that is the same argument that we are still making today and with respect to this super bowl type example where you're looking at an event that is not actually the location i want to  point your honour's to one portion of the specification that i think provides a good example of the type of event that we can be talking about and claim nine  forty eight through fifty five there is an example of an event here that is actually tied to two things it is tied to both location and also tied to something else like pre determined or random time and this is an event where depending on the time depending on the location the profile can be set up in that game it can be customized such that the house w a matching but so that is the type of that that we're dealing with and claimed nine it yes can include other things but at a minimum it needs to include the location determination and as we discussed before because of the events that they have identified location determination isn't the only kind of that correct is not the only type of event but in claim nine it is one of the requirements of the