may please the court i'd like to focus on two issues that are central to that deal the first issue is claims construction and the board's incorrect interpretation of claims six improperly reads out term uniformity this is especially problematic because that term is the key to how the likelihood of collision determination of the claim is made the second issue is the board's application of the goodrich reference to claim six goodrich doesn't describe a uniformly test as the basis for collusion prediction in fact the only reason privilege is being discussed is because the board read the term uniformly out of the claims when that term is properly considered the rejection of claims six based on goodrich fails and because there is no evidence in the record describing uniformly test a claim six the court should reverse the board's on kind of the early decision relative to claim six rather than remand turning to claim destruction claim six specifies a particular way of predicting a likelihood of collision between an object and a vehicle the test claim six uses depends on a lateral displacement between the object in the vehicle and how this lateral displacement changes for example if the lateral displacement uniformly approaches  uniform and test out of the claim the board stated that the phrase lateral displacement substantially uniformly approaches zero merely means that the obstacle is closing in on the vehicle and they will intersect which is like saying likelihood of collision prediction is made based on whether the object in the vehicle will collide the board's construction is wrong because it lacks any reference to how the likelihood is clear and determination is made there's no reference in the can construction displacement or to making seclusion prediction dependent upon whether or not the vital displacement uniformly approaches zero because the board's construction reads uniformly out of claim six the court should at least horizontal projection of the coordinates as it progresses over time and as you can see from figure to be the center lane which is twenty one c exhibits a lateral displacement that uniformly approaches zero however the lanes on response to the court was was was nearly going along with that example and was saying for example if a drunk driver swerves into your lane the system will predict if it for example looking in terms of bigger to eg if the drunk drivers in the left lane the system will see that it's about following a path that is not of concern because it's lateral displacements not uniformly approaching zero at that time however if the drunk driver swerves into the lane and now is following the path of lane twenty one c that would be one where it was judging that the lateral displacement over time to be uniformly approaching zero and then it would give an indication it's also possible that the drunk driver could then swerve out of the lane and into is running on this one limitation in a point you miss talking to her and her and the answer you know imitation if you're tall enough or the answer is no it's not and the reason why is because first goodrich doesn't do any test  claim six test to the sr to ation a figure to add we're asking i'm looking at the situation were three cars are approaching the three different lanes and i'm trying to make a likelihood of collision determination based on whether the obstacles closing in on the vehicle so i see that all three obstacles are closing in on the vehicle and whether they will intersect i have no way of knowing at that point how they were sacked because what what i'm lacking is the test of claim six and  of claim six tells me that how i know whether they're going to intersect by monitoring the lateral displacement as it progresses over time and if the changes are are the same if they're uniform then they're uniformly approaching zero and that's how i make the inclusion prediction so reversal rather than re man is appropriate here because the court has all the relevant evidence before it and is in just as good of a position as the board would be to decide the kind of delivery with respect to claim six there's no depositions there's no expert right and we and we all are familiar with distance equals rate times time as we all have an intrinsic understanding of the loss of the and distance and that's why we feel like it and i would i would urge that looking at figure two and two b is actually counter intuitive because lane they continuously get closer and closer and closer to until your intersect on the other hand the cars on the on the left and right brains for example as they approach on their path they will be they look like they are approaching you but that at some point they actually expanding away from you and that's why reasoning the board already provided the court's recent decision in d s s technology versus apple at eighty five fed third thirteen sixty seven suggests that reversal rather than remain would be appropriate that you're think just laurie may please the court to represent my own road today and respectfully request that this court affirm the judgment of the board with respect to claim six there's something that mr jerome pointed out to this court on several occasions i find troubling and i would like to focus some time there mr drone referred to what he called a uniformly test he also referred to a test of lateral displacement over time and he referred to a monitor of displacement over time if we look to the language of claim six itself language of claims that says a system according to claim five where in the process or determines a likelihood of confusion responsive to whether or not a lot of  displacement substantially uniformly approaches zero there is no test of whether a lot of displacement substantially uniformly approaches zero in the claim there's no statement of the process or determines whether lateral displacement substantially uniformly torch is zero the determination in claim six rather is as to a likelihood of collision based on a literal displacement is substantially uniformly approaching zero the determination is likely to that's the determination that claim six is making but it goes on the set of responses to whether or not to tell you how it makes that determination i'm not sure you can weed out that the remaining part of that i'm not looking to read out the remainder of the claim i was first told him to highlight where the determination is made and what the determination is made regarding that there is no express test of uniformity here or test of lateral displacement rather the uniformity of lateral displacement is a factor taken into account in determining the likelihood of collision if we look then into this patient of the six seven patent the eight six seven patent teaches us to do the same forty two the pattern reads if there is no change in relative motion between the vehicle and the obstacle the distance to the obstacle will be closed in the time period see if that is the time to contact is to you similarly beginning at line seven the pen reads in addition assuming that there is no change in motion as between the vehicle and the obstacle comma and the passage goes on to explain how ultimately it will reach a point of collision eight six seven pounds just like a good which is making an assumption that you are a lateral translation is going to continue uniformly and of based on that assumption of uniformity is determining if uniform will we collide so let's assume it is uniform then if that uniformity would put us in a point of collision we say they're here is the time to contact yes we will collide that's consistent between the x six seven and and goodrich i see no difference there and there is no test of uniformly the other major point i would like to address that mr truong made was the notion of reversal rather than remand here first i don't see any reason why we should need to get to that point but if this court were inclined to decide that there was fair in the court's decision reversal would not be appropriate as judge clevenger pointed out the board here focused on what goodrich teaches the board did not feel the need to go to the extent as head of the examiner of explaining in further detail what would have been obvious the ultimate conclusion reached by the board was one of  based on a combination of mathews believe and goodrich so we are faced with an obvious nyssa terminations but as to the particular limitation of claims six disclosed by goodrich the finding of the board was one of the teaching of the board  yes judge raina earlier you raised the question of waiver we take the view that claim construction was not specifically at issue or brought at the issue of via mobile in the proceedings below  did anything that transpire in the proceedings below that would properly otherwise preserve such an argument seems like it is time for for specific instruction in my view of what occurred below is not in fact a request for a construction of the terminal rather an explanation of how the language of claim six reads in light of goodrich the language of means was used i don't dispute that but it's in the context of a paragraph in a discussion of how to compare the plain language to the goodrich reference it's not a specialized move or time for a claim construction the the one further note i would make on the claim destruction point is that mobilizing has repeatedly asked for a clean and ordinary meaning construction without giving us any real guidance as to what that would be other than read the words clearly i believe the board did read the words of the claim appears to recognize the words that were in the claim and want one point that the council brought up was that the eight six seven patent and goodrich are both making assumptions a constant thing a kind of uniformity and if that was the case then there would be no need for the claim six determination of looking at  to be responsive to whether or not that or displacement changes uniformly or not if it just made a the next point with respect to claim construction below as council chance to respond to and did and and and and identify the issues with the proposed construction of the construction of the board adopted so it's clear that the claim destruction was that issue below and and that's the for the word uniformly to be given a given weight and that was raised up to the examiner in the response to the a c p the second office action response it was it was effectively argued every step of the way and and