rights hynix failed to disclose the basis for any alleged and here inherent suit theory and its petition and later expanded upon that area only five by presenting new attorney argument without expert support and raising new one sentence statement said that everybody's discloses that the bisque controller produces or generates control signals for the memory modules and then labeled that essentially as the system memory controller but average i'm sorry but the one site that the final written decision made was to the institution decision which recognized that it's the sequence or that produces the control to control signals that are used to manage the flow of data to and from the memory devices that is the biggest controller doesn't operate alone to accomplish that effect it must work with the sequence or the sequence or the processing of these high level that argument is the controller actually controls the sequencer itself as well so why isn't the base controller there we're controlling all of it because that this controller is the alleged system memory controller and it operat the construction manages the flow of data to and from the memory devices he just puts a label on it and says these high level commands are system memory controller but he clarifies also then a paragraph so he doesn't apply the claim  and neither did the board in that respect he did they just relied on dr was under analysis which is a high level command that has to be processed and asked you have to have timing associated with it and that's all don't waste it but there was an is you refer to it there was an agreed upon claim construction it was agreed upon let me finish michael and sorry and that construction was a device that manages the flow of data to and from the memory of a system right yes that's kind of broad there's no reference to as a killer you know activity with respect to time and so the parties but not their experts i would submit disputed whether or not that implicitly requires a county for timing characteristics and the  testimony from both parties and and the extent that evidence relied upon by petitioners expert was textbook evidence that said that managing the flow of data requires accounting for timing characteristics and that that system memory controller operates and does that by providing address control and data signals and it's petitioners expert who quoted the excerpt from the baker textbook exhibit one thousand and eight and he quoted it and he highlighted select portions of that and included in that highlight is the notion that a system memory controller i'm sorry memory controllers manage the movement of data into and out of dram devices it goes on say well accounting for for timing characteristics and that this expert agreed with that so there's a dispute about the complete meaning of manage the flow of data to and from memory devices where that requires the accounting and it's and we submit that there should have been a further claim construction analysis to look at all of this instrument and extrinsically i suggest you go to the board and said your complaint construction is inadequate and we need another we point it we point out in our pet owner response that both parties came in with the proposed claim construction but parties both parties agree that this construction comes out of these extrinsic evidence textbooks that manage the flow of data didn't come out of the spec it came out of the extremes of evidence and we submit that the board should have considered all the extremes of  their expert acknowledged that timing is required to account for managing the flow and that's what the expert told and highlighted from the jacobs text book exhibit one thousand and eight and then he also backs up that with exhibit one thousand and nine another textbook where he exemplified managing the flow of data from a system memory controller requires address control and data signals none of those are coming out the best that's not  and none of the timing is from the best now as i think it was a last effort by by hynix in their last brief tried to imply that the disk controller manages the does that require into and out of memory devices those that require time in a county for a time and we submit that all we have and it's wrong from the extrinsic evidence that was submitted guess i'm just trying to understand as your entire argument with regard to based hinge on us having to separately claimed in here in the read to be the module controller not the system memory controller so it's part of the resort to point to points with respect to that argument on test mode one is on the read there's a dispute because system memory controller like this would require the sequencer to unpack process and account for timing and that's consistent with the submission on the record of what it managed it means to manage the flow of data to a from memory but secondly we submit that you saying this is a question part of substantial evidence for you are you saying this is an error in claims structure i'm saying it's an error claim construction under tell about where the parties cannot agree on their complete meaning of the term that's an issue of law for the yes on test mode there was no construction per hour wrestling with the details of whether or not manage the flow of data requires a county for timing characteristics and it's in the extrinsic evidence of other testimony from all parties experts to that effect it does not it to be a system memory controller it has to be a device that manages flow of data to and from memory that was the agreed interpretation now managing timing could be an example of that management but other things could be management as well the testing of the memory chips themselves by determining when in what patterns of data are written into the memory and read out so as to perform self test so that was a finding of fact i think by the our experts testimony it's a finding of fact supported by substantial evidence now they have asked in this court and below for a more limited interpretation but it's it's odd because in their preliminary response they agreed in fact the only thing they said about the interpretation of system memory controller in their preliminary response which is that and expedient twenty one dollars is quote patent owner agrees that a system memory controller is a device that manages the flow of data to and from memory interestingly even more in the past no response they actually asserted that that interpretation of system memory controller is what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the phrase to timing and that both experience agreed on that so he says we agree to the construction given that both experts incorporated timing as a condition we understood that maybe his argument the experts our expert never agreed that that was a condition of management it might be an example of management dealing with timing but we very clearly did not put timing in our proposed construction and they very clearly agreed to a proposed construction that didn't say anything about timing so i don't understand how you can say now we know we always expected these words to mean timing even though they did say so i think the interpretation and as far as biscuit troll or manages st of all when that's going to happen for self that's purpose and it's also going to to manage the absolute the algorithms that are used including the bit so so my understanding of this technology i think there's a little in the record on this that different patterns of bits can be used to test these so at some high level it does control timing to a certain extent just the way it operates i think that will control on testing and unique in the algorithm so that's why i started off by asking you what your position was that no it doesn't do timing but we don't need timing or kind of depends on how high level you are viewing limitation of time it would be latter i mean i don't think controlling timing is required by the agreed upon construction but i do as i said before i think it's an example of managing flow of data and yes you could you could conclude on this record here that the b exactly that because it does determine the the algorithms used and when to use them and so it manages the flow of data in that sense you know those these issues whether  and paragraph seventy he doesn't you know used or apply the claim construction manage the flow of data to a primary devices you won't find it there and and where you will find it is in the analysis with respect the agreed claim construction of managing the flow of data to and from memory guesses like he describes what the best controller does it sounds like managing it really describes it embarrass them so are you saying the board can't rely on his articulation include that meets the managing data and q m if in fact it does meet the definition of manage the flow and flow requires interacting with the memory devices and where the expert it gets into the quotes the jacobs text book exhibit one thousand a to page ninety seven or ninety seven where he references and highlights the texts he selected memory controllers manage the movement of data into and out of dram devices while ensuring for among other things timing characteristics that's what it means to manage the flow the flow of data not just a cause an effect in a circuit or an upstream circus three has an impact downstream this is managing the flow of data to and thousand and nine that where he shows address data and control signals or use to achieve that you are fine address control data signals from the biscuit roller those are just high level commands so i'll grant you there is a cause and effect if you will but the effect the implementation of the flow requires not just the best but also the sequencer it's those two together that are needed to manage the flow of data to and from the memory device otherwise you just have a cause and effect situation where one upstream component has an effect of something downstream in an electrical circuit and that's not too broad it doesn't reflect managing the flow of data any more than perhaps  requires accounting for for timely characteristics and that list expert agreed the bottom line is the court didn't didn't wrestle with that the court gave it short shrift i'm sorry the board and reason that is not part of the claim construction but in our view it is a