portion of program code that are malicious the board rejected that construction the bourne adopted the examiners construction forty one and which the examiner states identifying malware is identifying a computer expert now we get to the appeal and in the response brief at page  fifteen he apparently has agreed that fidgets construction is the correct and construction a computer exploit is a portion or portions of that let's look at page fifteen can you tell us what you're talking to because the contained in otherwise but not the program and so while they agreed with you at the general level think didn't agree with the way in which you then further limited or applied that definition  what he says is that if you identify malware you identify a computer expert and and that is not the case identifying a computer exploit is no more than identifying malware and i think this is what happened this is this is a good place for example is that if i have malware malware says to you restricted all the files on my that's a legitimate command formatting your hard drive is a legitimate command sand you would recognize that this mound where when it does not have a computer expert and that's what the board bases reasoning on it had to do this because if you look through sand you and i have multiple times it never looks to see if the code contains an exploit ever it only qualifie has now said wasn't acrimonious so at the very least this case needs to be remitted in order for and a proper analysis under the correct construction and when they do that they're not going to be able to thanks i think it's ok but doesn't doesn't do you really see that the board has adopted an improper construction long walks or war where if the board adopt a construction you disagree with and that's why the three hundred and five patent works the way it does it contains these parser rules and these analyzer rules that looks within the content that's what the claim language said there with it i'm going to analyze to be po'd within the content to something which contains malicious code malware something which contains malicious code at a minimum ok right ok that's what i understand from this record i don't see the p t o saying malware by its very nature contains malicious code so if that sort of the pla meaning of malware and then san do is say we have something with a malware signature i understand your argument that you know maybe not all apples are bad i mean you know but but if ok that might be a malicious attack so go back to my format example formatting your hard drive is a loop is a legitimate operation that's performed on a computer that does not contain malicious code if it is not contained program  point to them our signature store for the parcels sandu is explicit on paragraph forty at the parser rules create the routine tokens it has nothing to do with the mound where signature store the claims of the three o five pen are are specific in that it has person and all its rules that can that correspond to computer computer exploits if you look at paragraph forty of stand you it explicitly states if you take the purser you parse the content you create the routine tokens unit you never parse anything to put anything in the as turned sandy on its head to send you says that you parse to create these routine tokens and then the routine tokens are compared to that now were seen at your store so there when they don't when they're talking about  sing these parsing rules they're talking about something that's in the malware signature store that can't be with that what sandy is about to send you says explicitly on paragraph forty that you do  especially doesn't talk about rules that correspond to computer expletives and that's that's where it becomes known is that this definition is just an improper definition we don't have a record support the standard meets the correct also figure eight are the routine token sets of the incoming code that there's no figure in say new showing the code in the malware signature store our point was and i think this was agreed with and in the reply brief was that the board made the reasonable inference that the the now that routine token sets in the malware signature store would look similar to the code that's in theory because that's the code that it's being compared to computer exploits and you look at sandy you at paragraph forty what sand you says is that it parses the incoming executable script to generate routine tokens that's where sandu does parsing and hence nothing to do with a malware signature sort that's already on the system but that's what the that's what the director and the board and the examiner pointed to the point to this malware signature store that's a ready on the system that has nothing to do with what cindy describes is parsing that pars to generate the routine tokens will generate routine tokens without regard to any computer exploits at all that's undisputed they couldn't point to that person that's when they changed course if you look at the you know in our briefing and then at the proceedings below they changed course saying oh we're going to point to the parsing that in paragraph forty for the parser rules continued to say that we get one paragraph  examiners answer that says ok the parser rules can be in them our signature store and then the border harps on that that's because our entire argument was that the parser rules had to correspond to computer exploits so they point to them our signature store but now that they point to them our signature stuart there's no parsing because the only parsing that happens insan do is to generate the routine tokens and that is undeniably has nothing to do with any