the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit is now open and in session god save the united states and this honorable co board more specifically there is no evidence no record that either of the references bhalla or hand disclose displaying anything let alone that the some other words in a secular ation met this way and those other words simply are not the work display the final decision by the board busy rendered in this case rely exclusively on of the term but i guess i'm i little bit confused doesn't itself you know disclose the accessibility of return receipt to the prior art and talk about that but isn't that the whole point is to know what was in the response emails your honor their word accessibility is what the petitioner here is relying on what google is relying on however there  nothing in the reference nothing in the record to support the proposition that that word means it's displayed and it's not simply a question of whether it could be displayed couldn't email be displayed that's not the mere fact that it can that they can be accessed when the whole purpose of the access is so that you know what's in the email doesn't include the logical displaying of those emails be verbal they could be found based it could be tactile it could be vibration there are a whole host of things a phone to do or email application to do and it's simply not inherent that any response is displayed let alone that the acknowledgment is displayed and if you look the only evidence there and expert declaration that where the expert says that a lot of skill in the art would understand that accessibility means that it has to be  other contention this is it taking control imitation here that wasn't satisfied by kabbalah and testing for the moment the question of whether the board changed its claim construction the board found the cue ball or teaches taking control of pages fifty two and fifty three and why isn't that sufficient particularly before the panel but that contention about whether to bala teaches taking control that was not position that was at vance by petitioner in the petition below and we would submit that ok i'm sorry i don't know i can understand from your briefing what exactly you think was wrong with the board's final construction what we think was wrong with the board's final construction was that the word was that take control was not part of those pages are cited in record as a whole sixteen or so pages of the record we discussed this with the board and taking control of the device different from taking control of an e mail application to the critical difference between me me your honor it need to take control of the device meaning there has to be some limitation on the on the device itself as a device level not in a software application level if one  hands that someone can take your phone and then get all the government information that's a different type of idea from an email application that might limit your ability to use that application and it's in the claims because of the device it sender to prohibit the recipient from getting rid of the box let's say that has the various choices that are given to the recipient is not taking control device if not only the box stayed put until you clicked one of the possible entries but also you simply could not bring up any other function of the  reading of that passage in our reading of the board's reading of that passage is that the other action there's nothing in the record that the other action means on the device that is still application level the board is still talking about the application specific aspect support that artist so the suggestion that they were somehow surprised or ambiguity about what google was arguing is absolutely baseless and the board relies on the same evidence that google relied on so the nd strain of argument is just whether you haven't actually supports the board's factual finding that it would be obvious to display a listing and i think that evidence starts and some of the questions  reasonable conclusion that the emails and cells are displayed and but yes response to the argument that you know it doesn't have to be displayed because you do if just because you want the information doesn't mean you have to be able to read it so that the direct answer to that your honor i think is that at this point we have the factual finding from the board that it would be obvious to display and so the question is if there's other ways to access  that wouldn't show that there's no substantial evidence for the fact that one way is to display and i do want to emphasize that they just did not contrary to the suggestion today they submitted no contrary evidence about mistake so what the board had was google's argument and evidence that return receipts are known that their entire purpose is to inform the sender her message was received and that  very least a reasonable inference from that evidence that those return receipts are displayed  supposing that there is a serious presentation of emails coming from the various recipients each of which pops up on the recipient screen and then  of the receipts but displaying a listing which is the language of the claim limitations and if so so on the listing aspect your honor i think we have t general responses i'll begin the series on presentation of emails i think that could be interpreted as an analyst thing but i think that the basis for the board's finding is number one if you just look at  from their expert and their expert also conceded on page fifty two of his deposition that he was known to display a list of information on a p d f so i think all of that taken together if you just look at  listing but go ahead i just want to also briefly note that the listing aspect if there's any doubt about kabbalah and what i've just described i think that's really where the board was had about him and figure two is referred to as a message tracking table which if that is displayed that would save to me pretty clearly to cover the  limitation but what indication from amman do you have that that message tracking table is in fact displayed to the user as opposed to simply being something that's going there's something affirmative in hammond that is displayed that's why it's important that there's a combination with kabbalah and kabbalah is a p d f display system and this is the alternative ruling on pages fifty six displaying information regarding the message and together that discloses the displaying listing requirements so that i think that's the most direct answer to this issue of the listing and the table to him and our expert did and it's striking that actually in their briefs and today has never addressed that combination which is again to just put it concisely is hammond has the listing track that russian ok thank you and of course happy to address any other questions about limitation one point seven but given that discussion of limitation one dollar i do want to be  clear about you know two essential points st we do agree with the board's ruling on pages fifty two to fifty four that kabbalah discloses taking control even if that is part of the construction but that really is the board's rd alternative ruling and there is no reason in our view for the court to need to reach that so st on pages forty nine to fifty one the board held that this argument that the limitation should be construed to include taking control timely the fact of the matter is that a just and no written submission ever argued that the board's construction included the taking control steps or i think more importantly that the  disclose the taking control status we collect all of those citations in our grief and this any suggestion to the contrary it is simply false nd after holding that this argument was untimely the board rejected the mention of one point six is in issue five that issue is explicitly and exclusively about this alleged procedural violation and as the court held there was no change in the construction and a just never argued never relied on the taking control stuff do you interpret judge paine's construction as being in conflict with the board's construction i  that google opposed that construction in front of judge payne i think we would still of course have arguments on that construction but going back to the point i was just making response on that issue is that the merits of the construction are simply not before the court their opening three only reference is this alleged procedural violation and we think that argument itself is completely meritless and essentially the board correctly held that all of these arguments relying on taking control were on time just go ahead the judge paints constructions not inconsistent be used in different scenarios and not necessarily that there are features can be mixed and matched so that is correct your honor and if that's the language that uses using different scenarios i i would suggest when it says used in different scenarios as needed that it is a reasonable interpretation of the board true that they can be combined together anywhere they set the word display in the context and in the papers and council just admitted as much but the slate was not discussed in the context that just was not in those sections for that limitation and when it came to the