next case is in re noble systems corporation two thousand eight hundred eighteen forty seven mr coster thank you if it please the court i'd like to make two points today at least two the first input is manual the user can go to the prospective client list select a number put it into the system or added to the do not call list that's the focus of figures five six and seven the other input is there because my colleague judge mally cannot see that exhibit ok ok thank you i will try to do this up if the if the toggle switch to twenty four is not set then the result is shown in figure nine which figure not ideal straights those accounts in their prospective client list that can and cannot be done all sections paragraph ninety five says it will go out to a database and retrieve the number of business phone number associated with that account paragraph ninety five says nothing more and as to other than obtaining it and displaying it doesn't say what screens are presented hundred some of the information which the user can refresh the studies they count the user can then dial the number and then it's necessary icon three fourteen can be selected to put the number on the do not call those it's quite evident that figure eleven shows a single number a single input and there's no teaching or suggestion that there is a second to put fear in the car eleven presents those accounts that can be dialed the other generate this phone number is associated with the kemp's that can't be done so therefore although all the rejections are based ferguson teaching the second input to modify a second number during the call claim one also recites displaying that second number to the agent during the call clearly figure eleven is deficient in a process are configured to cause agents workstation computer display a wireless number and name those limitations don't appear in any other c those are unique to claim fifteen but the examiner rejected claims fifteen based on in elsa's for claim one independent claim those limitations were not properly considered when this was brought up to the board's attention it was glossed over and now in the director's brief this is it attempted to be addressed from footnote five and page twenty two first of all the numbers display the figure eleven are home residential numbers not a wireless number that even if you did except that that number isn't box or area three hundred is a wireless number you would have to reject the p t o s assertion that that same number is the second number that one number can't be both you can't have it both ways you can't argue that that is the call handler causing the workstation to display so those are the reasons why i think cleaning fifteen rejection should be overwhelming and all public least save the remainder of my time and with regard to claim fifteen claim fifteen talks about this claim that the wireless number and the second telephone number to the agent i read talked about me and has a teaching of his playing the first number two the allegation is that the auto generated this was phone number caused this figure eleven to appear to be inconsistent with paragraphs eighty three and one of three which state that the list is uploaded and for those accounts that can be called a worksheet is generated it doesn't say anything about the business phone number icon being selected and that's causing the worksheet to be generated so that's clearly not is a statement on that page that does say man does disclose a number and a name however if you that paragraph talks about inbound calls man talks about a system where the user can interact with a website provide their name and number and then make an inbound call so that is not the wireless number dialed by the outbound by the call handler for example