can start off by telling us what the differences are that we don't repeat ourselves as your honor mentioned the key these two cases are related and so i would like to focus on the issues that are unique to this case and then also touch on the argument with respect to the email centric interface which didn't networking function in the expanded dynamic bar the board did not provide any explanation for why a person of or nisqually our would have added it wireless networking function which is a system level configuration option to application level person window it twenty five which we know provides contact availability information or email window one thousand and twenty which provides a list of received email messages it makes no sense to include it wireless networking function to either cookies as person window or email window and there's no motivation for doing so other than using the four hundred and sixty six patent as a roadmap the board didn't make a finding that the use a notification regarding wireless networking function which is unrelated to the information in the person window and the email window into those windows and there's no evidence to support that there's your are your argument predicated on me accepting your view that the quick settings menu operates at the system level as opposed to an user level application level so that is one layer of the argument no but does your whole argument predicated on me accepting that no you don't you prevail in that argument if i don't agree with you that it's limited to the system yes your honor with respect to claims made in one thousand those are the specifically required this wireless networking function so even if you  reject the the fact that the system level configuration options the wireless network function has no relationship to the information in the person window in the email window and but that's the finding that the board meeting the board said that there would be a motivation to modify the person window an email window only for notifications related to that information while it's networking function i don't think there's any dispute is unrelated to the information and those windows able to quickly ask access those configure rate configuration options so google allegedly argues or argues that this modification allows for quickly officially and conveniently changing the settings but all those benefits that he talks about are done away with by moving the configuration options for the system level down to the person window or email window statement that it would be for safety in courtesy but there was no explanation about why it would provide safety or courtesy particularly when you're moving those configuration options down into the person window now you have overstated something you said there is no evidence and i said didn't have an expert who said it and you said no and then you went in you said it's only attorney argument none of that is true they did have an expert with you now admitted that said it now you're just telling me he didn't explain his rationale behind it so both of you need to work on being more precise when you represent things to the court i apologize your honor when what i intended to convey was  expert merely state includes refashion that safety and convenience would provide the motivations but there is no explanation for that those generic motivations particularly when we're moving the elements from the top level barked down to a deeper level into the windows and one other note about the special notifications the board is relying on the special notifications but whether or not he has special notifications for particular contacts is irrelevant to what in that click settings menu that google relies on for its proposed modification because even if there are separate notifications for different contacts what that click settings menu does is actually turns off the turns on and off those notifications across the board at the system level it's so it says that the notifications maybe officially switch between on or off including for special notifications so the efficiency comes from being able to turn all of those on and off at the same  interface for those claims the board's obviousness decision here is based on accepting google's attorney argument that both of could these as disclosed implementations of the email window include only a subset of the email functionality but that's purely attorney argument there's no support for this there's no support for this position could ease at the top explains that there are two alternate ways that the email window can be implemented either provide an email specific view or having the desired email functionality or have a viewer that instantiates and instance of the user's email program and we have expert testimony from both parties that explain that the nd implementation is an implementation of the fully functioning email application and there must and that makes sense because there must be some difference between the two alternatives that are being disclosed by could be and the expert testimony on that is a eliminates all of the benefit and functionality of an e mail window having just the desired functionality there's no reason to make that modification when it could be says to instead alternatively invoke the full in application from finding the board made here was it's not limited to having a setting at the system level but you would also have a setting at the application level so if you look at appendix page fifty two that's why i started with by asking her that question and you let me because i think that if you were limited you  about this system level notification vs at the application level i think again the board made a factual finding there didn't the board did not credit their expert testimony on this issue whether or not the special notifications  for reasons of safety and courtesy example when you are on an airplane and sidelights he actually tells us that this came directly from the references and is supported by the testimony of google's expert again there is more than substantial evidence i heard counsel say that the target seventy two is the one in question here of could these should only be read in one way again the board looked at the evidence it looked at the language of cookies it looked at the expert testimony from both experts on that point and it agreed with google's evidence and arguments so you can be does only disclose a limited email functionality so there would have been reason to modify the references here as proposed by people again the board's decision is more than supported by substantial evidence and the board even looked at their expert testimony which again they did not hear anything about their expert testimony but there actually expert actually admitted that there would be g function would provide safety and courtesy for example on an airplane that provides sufficient motivation to include the wireless networking function and cookies but the the claim acquires that the wireless networking function be in the expanded dynamic bar that's why google had to argue in the what had to find that it would have been obvious and they would have been obvious to include the wireless networking function in those particular windows and there's no explanation for why putting it in those particular windows as twenty is only representative of the st implementation that cookies tells us about cookies also tells us that there's an alternate interpreter alternate implementation of the email window and that implementation is as both experts agree the