that must change over time it has to be dynamic it's in the very word predicted you don't predict something that stands still it's and it's in that the common language of them is the common definition of predict the least yes wrong but i don't think it actually is a leap that they have to be dynamic because they are predicted i think it flows directly logically any prediction is something that must change over time and on the st point at multiplicative factors in the two references that are being combined here and who was actually dr brash was was asked what in this mix can actually qualify as a predicted road section coefficient and he said that the only piece of data in these two references that could qualify as a predicted road section coefficient is the mean required travelling time that could arguably and we dispute this that could arguably be dynamic and we dispute that it actually is because the entirety of matsumoto is a static calculation and there's these i think it's expresses three words mean travelling time and forwards in another place mean require travelling time there's no discussion of what this term actually means it's a mystery and it happens to be in a translat japanese patent and talks totally about static factors the number of turns on a road segment the distance of a road segment with a road segment and then there's this mean travelling time and in the combination which which google is challenge the claims with the combination takes the entirety of the as you reference and tries to put it in these three or four words of matsumoto which we argue is reconstructing the claim and does not make any sense in the context of the two references these that this combination starts out with the there is this this formula for how much identifies its root and its all these static variables with multiplicative factors there's weighting coefficients for each of these that are it says it's greater than or equal to zero there's it somehow this big addition  of a distance cost a mean travel time cost and a road with cost each of which are multiplied by some factor of zero or greater than zero and then there's a th term and these are all some together and  nclear how any of this would work there's the number of turns in that squared and they take that and they plug june into one of those terms and say there is your predicted road section c it would not be any sort of multiplicative factor against which you multiply anything which is the basis for what is a coefficient it has to be a multiplicative factor in some sort of equation and that's how it's the schools in seventy three  the regular travel times in the current travel times are multiplicative factors that are there multiplied against the theoretical travel time to get you your route calculation none of this is present here and and i would ask you if council was going to get up here shortly in arguments of counsel can make sense of this equation how these two fit together and where shoe fits into much the moto it would be a good question to ask of council because it's not been described anywhere further dr brash google's expert made the statement that using historical information to determine a likely outcome is how much more does mean require travelling time works and in our claim construction argument in the context of the claims you will see that these predicted road section coefficients are used to they are used to computer route search based on current and statistical section data if you're only talking about past data and not any current data then they do not qualify as the predicted road section called fission the challenge claims you do understand what the dog has determines the priority and he can understand that you're on to him that  predicted and goes off from there on a tangent and now they are pointing to save this decision and saying well there's one place where we point to where you can put much your moto in here and that's the predicted road section coefficient and that's what we argue against not the overall finding central issue on appeal as whether the limitation were slighting predicted road section coefficient should be so narrowly construed such that the term predicted can only mean dynamic or variable the board considered this argument fully vetted intrinsic evidence and determined that the claim language cannot be construed so narrow it specifically in the final written decision the board noted that make or fail to provide any citation to evidence that would support its attempt to import a dynamic or variable restriction into the claimant which the board also explains that make or did not provide did not point to any portion of the specification showing that dynamic or variable coefficients are required by the claim that's a twenty one dollars as a result and after having itself previewed intrinsic evidence on the board found that specification quote did not show any intent to limit the term predicted wrote section coefficients let me read you something and tell me what's wrong with it there is a clear difference between the act of predicting something and using that statement any of us to what is going on with this predictive coefficient what's wrong with their explanation so they've let me try to three parties answer that st your honor regardless of whether predicted modifies mater argues or predicted modifies wrote such and the board's analysis and holding and determination still stand because there simply nothing in the term predicted that in this country there's nothing in specification there's no lexicography there's nothing that would satisf stringent and demanding standard patente set forth a specific definition of the parts an ordinary meaning maker has not pointed to any of that that would require predicted regardless of whether modifies coefficient or modifies prosection argument in its brief than hire the of the patent is predicting an optimal route search and the way you predict an optimal routes where if you forecast what are the best individual wrote sections or links that constitute that so what that really shows i would predict that as modifying is the road sections and not the predicted coefficients rd i would suggest your honour's that regardless of whether again predicted modifies coefficient or modifies road sections the board found it even under make wars argument that the matsumoto reference disclosure of a meaning require travel time expressly discloses the predicted just to address a couple of points raised by counsel nothing in the patent discusses predicting the route or predicting its search talks about predicting conditions within that route and generating the best fastest rate in predicting the rude self doesn't make sense there's no it doesn't make sense in the context of the patent there's no predicting a route and weighing it against something coefficients are the regular times and i would just point out that under the language of the challenge claims that the predicted ro coefficients are used to allow the root search to be computed based on current and statistical section data if you are limiting the matsumoto mean required travelling time to statistical data then you are