understand from reading the thirty four patent that the blackberry invention at issue here in claim for is putting a lot of information that's how i just clarify where we are here because there are quite a number of claims that issue so the main claims  claim for is the cell phone implementation of d s o that's not a large in a large portion of this is focused on issues other than that right so you're jumping right to the claim for issue yes i want to make sure that this court focuses on the fact that  the error that happened with respect to claim for st so what the with the boy did was to rely on certain specific and body mends and cookies to find every element of the independent claim one either disclosed disclose is that the specific implementations that were relied on for a claim one can be implemented on a cell phone there is no evidence of that and in fact could these itself teaches that you wouldn't do it that way if you were at all try to trying to put these implementations on a handheld device right so what happens is the board forgot what was not known fifteen years ago in two thousand and four the st i away from being on the market blackberry devices were the very st handheld devices to capture the market and blackberry then had to solve the problem of cramming this large amount of information from multiple multiple applications onto a tiny screen on  your view that the board found that kitty's discloses application on a cell phone or that the board said it would be obvious to put it on a cell phone based on cadiz i'm trying to understand is your argument that the board incorrectly found it was disclosed expressly in the reference or that it didn't find it was disclosed in the reference but rather found it would be obvious in light of what was disclosed in the reference what is your take on the board's opinion the board found board in its final decision also adopted that instant with respect to the analysis of claim for the board said obviousness with respect to claim one but could use discloses the cell phone limitation so ultimately when you put claim one in four together it's one of obviousness so i think it's important to pick out the fact the cell phone implementation was on the basis of cookies is disclosure not that it would have been obvious to implement that information on  wherein the entire display is covered is particularly useful where the system and method of the president mention will be used on a device having a relatively small display area such as for example a handheld computing device a cell phone and so forth so what could these is teaching is if you're going to take our implementations and put it on something like a cell phone what happens is what's claimed to be that dynamic or that st element that we're talking about here that dynamic part takes up the entire display because the cell phone and the handheld device screen is so small that dynamic work takes up the entire display and that's it that's all could he says it doesn't say that now you have any room left to expand the dynamic bar into an expanded dynamic bar and be able to access additional information with selectable links in there that would allow you to then invoke the applications and in fact both sides expert agreed that there are differences in the designs between a desktop and a cell phone that would create create problems like this both sides expert to experts agree that they'll be differences in processing power in memory in screen resolution that meet this you can't just take every disclosure and kiddies and automatically say we can put this on the cellphone because kiddies says if you going to put it on a cellphone take up the entire display that's all kiddies and what google and the board fail to acknowledge is that against the weight  teaching like the d's they said you know what a person of ordinary skill need the skilled in the art who could have right that's a key word they didn't say would have they said it the pose that could have implemented this on a cellphone where there's absence no disclosure of that you're spending all your time on this one little narrow claim for issue about cell phone which honestly the best it possibly gets you is a vacate remand and then honestly the board adopts in a clearer fashion exactly the rationale that you don't want them to adopt i mean that's the end result here i mean you're not you're not going to win on that one so do you want to pasta mean i'm not saying you won't win with us but you're not ultimately going to walk out the tories and claim for because the cadiz reference gives  for the board to readily conclude it's obvious in a clearer way than it already did so what why don't you move to your claim construction argument which i think was sort of the prominent one in your briefing you're spending so much time on this one there are a little issue that i don't feel like you have a lot of long term success on do you want to maybe move to the other issues i will do so in one second your honor i put i do think it's important to note that google's petition does not rely on obviousness for the cell phone limitation and i think that if it goes back include static information but then the board took it even further became even more erroneous to say that now the selectable link can be completely static right because the additional preview information does not only need to be dynamic then the static portion can be the link now that is completely unsupported by any of the intrinsic evidence the claim language says that the link has to be embedded in that dynamic information the specification makes clear that the dynamic information or counts of emails so for completely ignored the blackberry applicants statement during the prosecution which clarified or distinguished over a piece of prior art so the prior art had a static mail icon next to dynamic information and black berry told the patent office this is not our invention our invention in fact it amended the claims added the embedded language and said our invention has the link it bedded in the dynamic information and the board disregarded all of those statements did not find disclaimer and ultimately lead to its erroneous conclusion you think the call voicemail link is also entirely dynamic no your hon voice mail link is exemplary of the type of link and it never mentions the fifty on red which is the email one that you're mentioning it never talks about that yes it's in the spec this fifty and read is underlined so i assume  the call voice mail link as a link the specification does not call that a selectable link in bedded in the dynamic information so you may recall during the prosecution that the claims originally started out very broad and all of this additional i language was amended to overcome the prior art and that's exactly the prior i was talking about earlier where in order to distinguish over the prior art reference that had a static link extra dynamic information blackberry added the invented language proper broadly recite is selectable link by the or not it includes dynamic information the claim language does not modify or qualify that selectable length term in any manner that would require it to include dynamic information similarly the claim says the additional dynamic preview information comprising a selectable link so isn't that suggestive of the fact that the link has to be dynamic your honor that's certainly the argument to make we respectfully disagree here you started by saying nothing in the claim suggests this and i think they've got a strong argument that the claim suggests they may not prevail but i think you're dramatically overstating your case about the plain language of the claim and your honor we can look at the rest of the intrinsic evidence we believe the claimed understood and support them but if you look as you do this court is of error the claims need to be construed in light of the specifications specially in light of the standard that we have here so if you look at the specification i mean the specification language that your honor you pointed to judge moore that's part of the prosecution history they actually pointed to that this particular passage in the specification as support for the selectable length limitation that they want this court to extrude differently today so we think their representation to the patent not support their argument and then if you look at figure four which is the other figure that they again rely don during prosecution that also does not support their argument just like the other figures it discloses a static text and what they would agree on we would agree is dynamic information so the fact that if you look at the specification of holistically and even the specific passages the specification clearly describes dynamic preview information as including both static information and dynamic information so the board did get this right then with respect to the prosecution history dad also supports the board's construction the board looked at the prosecution history to evaluate it while the parties arguments and disagreed with blackberry so they like to point to two statements on the part prosecution history but if you look at them for example that and i know too there's nothing in that in the prosecution history that gives you that the selectable link has to include dynamic information similarly they point to the at in one thousand and five they point to presentation of static icons for example in a dynamic bar being different from the dynamic preview information and if you look at that two again there nothing there that tells you that the link has to include dynamic information in fact if you look at claim thirteen of the three years for a patent that's at eighty one dollars that actually tells you that  be included as part of the dynamic preview information so we think all of these these pieces of evidence the intrinsic evidence supports the board's construction and the courts are the firm that construction specially in light of their statements about figure six if there are no other questions on the claim destruction issue i like to turn quickly to the claim for issues so i thought you were i think you started by saying even if you don't agree with the construction you've got the alternative a substantial evidence so did you finish  that i did not you are i'm happy to address that and i think it is an important point which is that the court actually need not reach the claim construction issue here it can simply a farm the board on the substantial evidence issues and with the spec to for example the job here it looked at all the evidence it considered all the arguments and provided it well reasoned decision so for example the board looked at google's arguments and the expert testimony from google there should why you want to order skill would have motivation you would have the motivation it said this would provide a better user experience because the amount of visual clutter on the display would have been reduced again with supporting testimony from dr olson so when you view the evidence more than substantial evidence evidence shows there is that board made factual findings about the reference codis it said paragraph seventy two of cadiz what it tells you is that there is a limited email functionality that's provided by cadiz that's a factual finding more board made by the board based on the evidence it evaluated and the board found based on doubt that there would have been motivation and there would have been reasons to modify that interface the e mail centric interface of cookies to provide a fully functioning e mail software again it complains to the court today that it didn't understand google's of argument to be an obvious one but if you actually look at the underlying record and i'll point you to me your petition and where you said that cell phone line for would be obvious in light  even if it's not disclosed there and show me that in your petition because what the patent owner argues isn't relevant to finds the contours and i p r is your petition sure you are so so i think if you look at the petition for example  argument to be could use discloses the self not to these renders the cellphone obvious i understand that you said obvious with regard to claims for but that's because i'm clean one there are she's correct there capable of being applied on a cellphone sure you are and i think you have to look at i think if you go back to look at the board's decision and the way the board expenditures decision i don't believe it gives us a roadmap that we need to look at here so if you look at a forty seven dollars the board sixty it tells you that the tickets and the implementation that's in the other interfaces also applies to sixty so it's not as limited as they want to suggest then the board went on and made a factual finding th a cellphone the war didn't stop there it judge moore it went on and told you why one of skill would have been able to take a dustup interface and put it on his cell phone they said look at these tells you you can resize the containers right the side bars you can resize the viewers so tells you that so with the end i think what's telling here is blackberry never argues that the interface is here could not have been displayed on a cellphone we're talking they're making a mountain out of the limited to including a cell phone so that's one example i can give you others your honor if you like i know that i should post i'm out of time but i'm happy to give you a couple other examples or two more if you like you judge moore i'm going to harp on claim for for just one minute because it's an important claim you're right that in the board's decision appendix forty seven dollars all in one paragraph the error is made plain or it starts with saying we understand petitioners argument to be that could ok but i understand your problem is that i understand them as saying that throughout in like seven or eight or ten different paragraphs this reference says this invention can be employed on things like a cell phone and then there's a particular embodiment later on which is of the same ilk of all the ones disclosed as being employable on a cell phone and  i understand the board is saying this disclosure likewise is that that can be on a cellphone because we think the invention and there's no doubt that the person centric an e mail centric versions later are on our part of the invention and they're saying the invention can be on a cell phone so i think what they're saying is in the place where they talk about person centric and e mail centric they don't mention cell phone but since they mention it in eight different places and say the invention can be put on a cell phone i think i'll be honest i'm just want to lay my know for a claim one with the board relied on or the implementation in figures sixty eight a through c and ten all right so those specific implementations there's absolutely no disclosure you could do that on a cellphone and in fact turns its head to one side when a person or entity which it represents is either available or not unavailable to use the physical doll to indicate whether somebody is that they all a bow or not available you cannot implement the specific implementation email centric disclosed in those other figures on a doll so just because katie says you could do this on a number of different platforms does not mean that you can take every single implementation and actually put it on every single platform and if anything