and in the earlier prosecution they used only for the remote correction and in both cases they use you goldwasser for everything else correct except in the first case they said it wasn't enough correct but this case they said it is  reached that decision so it's not a situation where single examiner decided to make a  afternoon your honour's the issue here is whether the p t acted reasonably want to found it would be obvious to use a playback button to command playback of goldwasser's recording the answer to that is clearly yes and the reasoning on this point is both explicit and thorough we can start the joint appendix eighteen where you see the p tabs most relevant finding on the point they say we find that goldwasser's address controller when viewed in light of you for x to brighten interface and goldwasser's user control panel would have taught one of skilled ordinary the art to control circuit configured to allow for simultaneous recording when the record key is actuated to begin recording and playback when the playback he is subsequently and solely actuated to begin playback even that sentence five itself is neither conclusionary nor insufficient because it's obvious what what the interest what the points of interest in the references work right they you notice here in this one single conclusion or a sentence that's been alleged to be insufficient p t explicitly identifies three things the address controller let's now look at how we got to that result so first the board started by correctly summarizing the invention here as a substantially media and seamless resumption of interrupted perception of program information that is the one key soley playback limitation that's that's now being asserted on appeal that occurs a joint appendix twelve where they where they analyze in a claim and reached a conclusion the board also analyzes goldwasser's disclosure and finds that it's or for example one often one will be watching a particular program when one must temporarily seize watching for example to take a telephone call or the like it would obviously be convenient to be able to record the programme from that point forward complete the telephone call and simply watch the remainder delayed by the length of time of the interruption that in itself which is in substantial evidence in the record it's the exact teachings of goldwasser the primary reference was clearly significant to the board's conclusion and what that teaching tells you even by itself would be enough for obviousness here because it says all you do is simply watch the remainder of the delay so the only question it's left the only difference now that that that that we can even articulate between what's explicitly described and goldwasser and this claim is how do you simply watch the remainder do you need to do something more than push a single but there is no reason to think that you do and or it goes on to explain why that is so if you look at joint appendix ten the board focuses there on the address controller of goldwasser and dave dave note that the address controller fifty eight controls the storage of the digitized video samples and is responsive to commands from the user control panel so we know that this controller which allows you to simply watch the remainder of your program on your telephone calls over response to commands and those commands come from what he calls the control panel again so what's left well we need now but that is effectively how do you implement this control panel  when you press the playback button and then the board correctly identifies just nurse argument below which is under petitioners are ground this teaching is to be viewed in connection with teaching of goldwasser which ok you're going so fast ok i can't find where you are on page fourteen and the board correctly plays that switching on joint appendix sixteen  controls the recording and reading back but wait look something to the board characterized in your argument page fifteen in the center where it says in other words petitioner's for lying when your friend teach you to button interfaces and not the actions that occur when those buttons are pushed well so you just told me your frac discloses solely because it's not your fact tells you recording begins when the button is pushed but then in the very your telling me that in fact discloses it but and i see i see everything you're saying but then you're telling me but the board did not lie on your fact that disclosure that what the next sentence demonstrates is the board instead relied on goldwasser for interface and not the actions that's that was my point i think they could also have made that finding it's not clear that they did but when you get to the bottom of the fifteen and over to sixteen i do think that's where the fact finding becomes quite clear as to what the obvious eighty's had buttons that had these sort of commands and then they say we find that it would have been would not have been beyond the skill of an ordinary skilled or partisan to implement goldwasser's user control panel with keys or sighted and  and then and then more to regulate i think to judge moore's question if you look to now page nineteen so that to me is the clear teaching this was the argument that was being made below that this controller in goldwasser gives you the gives you all of the functionality you need because it gives you infinite flexibility it accepts commands from where does the board make the finding about this flexibility you might ask it's that page twelve so it's in this second full paragraph and in that paragraph the board notes as described in goldwasser recording is controlled by address control control or fifty eight which is responsive to commands received from user control panel fifty and it goes on the user control panel may be used to send an interrupt a very is the playback of the video recorded by the device this is exactly what i'm referring to this is the flexibility of this controller gives you it's responsive to a control panel that lets the user put commands in those commands then could permit playback from again as the as the board had discussed a page ten  portion of the memory at any speed without impacting the recording that's the finding that made it so taken together it's eminently reasonable for the board to have said if the only thing that's missing is this is a single button to resume playback even if that's not flexible in recognizing where we were and that was a good thing because if i thought thirty minutes of wavering two minutes of merits and i was really worried so in any event way that here's my problem you agree in fact you argue that the board decided that the slowly limitation was present and you walk me through carefully thoughtfully and methodically how they did that and what they relied on so the board decided  there is no questions only was argued during the oral hearing your argument to me then of waiver it seems to me is the board here and you also say at one point when you objected to this of which you objected to something but we won't go into details about what you just did tell so really what your argument is is the board abused its discretion in failing to hold waiver because it was raised below maybe not as much as you think it ought to have been or in the right place but it was raised it was decided below and now it's one appeal to us so it seems to me that your question you're entire argument couldn't possibly have been framed as they leave it because they never made it below and thus they can't raise an appeal because they did make it below and it was addressed below right your argument it seems to me is the board abused its discretion by not agreeing with us that they didn't raise it at the right than two minutes because i'm already well over so let me try just address your concerns very quickly the board obviously had an obligation to address every element of the claim in its final written decision there's no dispute about that that's its obligation in th reach the silly limitation even if it wasn't press below at all they have to say something about it the problem we have is the entire theory of appellants case is that the board didn't spend sufficient time on the silly limitation and our response to that is because because that's very it's a very simple reason it was never argued below in the papers and that's the problem it wasn't argued until it sprang up suddenly at the world hearing after all the papers and evidence have been collected and put into the record the board's rules are clear that it's not the time to raise new arguments this court's case law it's clear that that's not the silly limitation what am i missing and did i really misconstrue all of those many pages of your brief that were devoted to this i don't think you've misconstrued them but you might have misconstrued the import because we're certainly not seeking remand well i know i got that ok but i what the or what the remedy were actually seeking is which is it that the appellant should not be permitted to seek a rematch and or reversal on an argument was not properly raised below that's the way but the board concluded it was properly raised because they addressed it and they uncomfortable ok if i were to agree with a police in this case and uphold the decision in this case it wipes away all the others that you argue today doesn't it entirely because this case as i understand it includes all of the claims that were sorted in the apple case so if we uphold this than an infringement in the apple case is irrelevant and the unified case includes a subset of the claims argued in this case no i'm not asking to revisit the apparatus and i'm just saying to you i don't think i can't i don't know if we invalidate all about this the claim at issue in this case doesn't appeal i want to remind the court that you are in the prosecution the word slowly was added to the application claim to indicate the precise function or the payback key is there something wrong with a clock is still not running