focused on the fact that there was a one talk cycle delay after one talk cycle difference between figures twenty five and the invention which is attributed to a store delay time what you need to understand about their twenty five a bennett is for each of the eight timing diagrams in that figure they show one hypothetical type of transit transaction that can occur across that particular bus in reality of course there will be hundreds of thousands if not millions of transactions going across those bus configurations every second because it's a very high speed device and not all of the transactions are going to look like the hypothetical transactions illustrated in those diagrams that's because the timing diagrams of figures twenty and twenty five include a fixed ip and they have been simplified for illustration purposes to show only the effect pipelining or multiplexing on the generic time in other words all of these other factors that could potentially affect time such as arbitration losses and retry conditions have been stripped away and those figures so that they only illustrate the effect of pipelining or multiplexing on the generic time that's the purpose of figure twenty five so it's not a surprise that you would strip away those other factors you'd be choosing between these two bennett configurations for reasons other than the late time too wouldn't you you'd be choosing the faster system is the be system and you get a limited number of pins from the a system and those would be the reasons you'd be choosing between the configurations and like correct i think in general you're correct and the whole purpose of figure twenty five is to show that you can start with a fully multiplex system which is going to be as you say slower but around that system but the important takeaway is that just because you've illustrated one particular hypothetical transaction these figures does not mean that every transaction that occurs across the bus is going to look like that and in fact we know from we'd really only need to find one if it really did anticipate is that correct i don't hate each and every feature i don't think that's correct your honor and i believe that's where the board went wrong the board seemed to acknowledge if i could just for a moment talk about figure thirty five the board seem to acknowledge that in thirty five because you have arbitration losses and you have retry conditions the amount of time that transpired between receipt of an operation code  request and the delivery of data is going to be indeterminate with the board said well sometimes you might have a transaction that actually does look like what's shown the figure twenty five a and b for instance if you have a transaction where there's no there's no delay time before the arbitration there's no arbitration losses and there's no retry conditions that hypothetically you could have transactions that look like they're twenty five a and b and the board said that's enough that's enough for anticipation but we would submit that's an incorrect construction of the word representatives as the word representative is ordinarily used and that it's clearly used in the patent in order for one value to be represented a representative of another value and have to consistently stand that second value it can't be a matter of chance or happened happenstance as an example the minute hand of my watch is not representative of the amount of change in my pocket at any given time even though i want to kazan that may correlate there's no actual relationship between those two pieces of information i think they've been triggered representative to be indirectly linked or are affecting your honor i don't want to try to crawl inside the mind of the board but i think well they did use at one point the term indirect way right i think the board mis understood what figure twenty five is actually showing because it consistently referred to it as an embodiment and to be fair with a figure of twenty five a and b are our transactions there are transactions occurring across a particular bottoming but there but the figure itself is not a quote embodiment it's one hypothetical transaction taking place on the bottom if i understand your representative argument it is correct me if i'm wrong it is that then it doesn't disclose representative because it doesn't have a time that corresponds to the start and end times of the delay cycle or the clock ticks the way that does so i guess i feel like your argument is a little bit circular and i don't mean that in a derogatory way i mean whether or not that it discloses a represent a value hinges on my accepting your start and after definitions  seems to me it seems that these are intertwined or linked and it all stands or falls as best as i can tell based on whether i agree with you that claim twenty six requires the start to be immediately after the read response and the after to him usual on an immediate transfer of output data so the time that it we're talking about it seems to me and then it whether it discloses it hinges on your arguments regarding started and time am i wrong your judge moore i think you're correct although i'd like to expound on that just to make sure that i understood your question i think i think you are correct so as an  claim construction that the board analyze the case under the claim destruction that we think is correct which is at the start time is the receipt of the operation code and the end time is to deliver that was the board's primary analysis i made a factual error there because  the sooner that figure twenty five a satisfied that condition figures are twenty five am be satisfied that condition because they misunderstood what those figures are actually representing i don't know the board may rejections under both of those cl argument is right the claim is not clear where the start point is it gave that as an alternative construction the actual main structure the core use assumed the start time being the receipt of the operation codes and the end time being the delivery where we can show me where that is true because i didn't understand that i would point to as an example a fourteen which is in the decision on appeal so my only point here your honor and i don't know doesn't that don't they actually from if we reject the construction that your advocating i'm not saying i'm not sure that remain a right to reject it but you started by saying oh no they adopted our constructions both started in time and i thought their lord why are you saying that my only point that me on to get to that and i don't necessarily think it's wrong so i'm trying to figure out what you're talking about my only point is that the board first analyze claim under the idea that the start time is the start of the read request and the end time is the delivery of data and according to the board figures twenty five a and b were sufficient to satisfy that and then it went on on the next page after moreover to say more moreover there is a lack of clarity about the start time so what my only point is it addressed that as an alternative construction now that alternate misconstruction we believe is wrong as is the courts as is the board's implicit construction of represent how the board tells us that they think this is within a broader support reasonable interpretation yet that that is actually incorrect because this package expired i think that's been cleared up on several of the other not reasonable to always brought as they did anyway i would argue that that was action is proper under any instructions that is getting to your point the judge more in terms of where the starting delivering the data but here's the problem you can send me an email and i can respond to it but i don't respond to it immediately right i am in response to your email but i might do it an hour or two later after court you know so so it's the immediacy that is the problem for it it's the context of the claim and the invention it's very clear from the context of the invention that when they say delivered that after the delay time they're talking about immediately after it's like i tell my kids to take the cookies out of the oven after twenty minutes it universally understood take them out after the twenty minutes expires not hours later and the invention simply would not work if the amount of time it transpires is essentially indefinite because the whole idea of the invention is i m sure sure that would work it's not the amount of time is indefinite it's that the bus is only going to be promised to be unused during a critical period of time and after doesn't pertain to when the bus is unused after pertains to when the output data is later sent that could of course occurred some point later you could buy yourself some extra time because maybe it's going to take extra time to upload or do something else but i'm i'm if i'm the requester i'm the master the bench is the and you are a memory device if i ask you to perform a read operation and deliver the data into clock cycles after two clock cycles the only way the invention is know because they deliver the data after two clock cycles that says deliver the data no sooner than after two that's all that's the question my from the argument by the way that that is not anything that works and why that wasn't part of the board's analysis that's an argument the mark on has come up on appeal but again the invention or even understand what you addressed this whole after thing in your brief you guys seem to say that like from new arguments but you're the one who said it out the board didn't reach a construction when after but in your brief you're arguing quite vociferously that after it's got to be defined as was all but are you telling me it's not in the blue brief that you think after means that it is sent immediately at the end of the lag time i think that i pretty sure that is struction but that wasn't a that wasn't a basis for the in your party so i think that you certainly in your blue are making the argument whether it was even so there wasn't a clear instruction on this below i think that you open the door and they've got to help in the not because you're advocating for an affirmation of access value of one i'm sorry i meant line ten in column sixteen to give you a chance to get there that's an access value of one would indicate the slave should not access the bus until at least two cycles after the last byte of the packet has been received so it clearly anticipates an embodiment in which it isn't sent back to the moment the time expires but rather is sent back no earlier than when the time expires could you say at referring to the fact that the slave of the packet is directed to must then begin any internal process is needed to carry out the request of both transactions the requested time and use more most of the instances that are discussed in the specification refer to it in expressly not required to so why do we then construe the claim as pertaining to the first not the second embodiment your honor the again i go back to my cookie example there is a connotation when when somebody says do something after x amount of time there is a logical conversation in context that you do it at that time not some indefinite time later then i believe that you claim as it were for so if if somebody were infringing and they didn't do it immediately they delayed an cycles just because they wanted to avoid infringement of your claim would you really not be standing here saying it still occurs after your honor it's a curse to clock cycles later than the delay period but it's definitely after the delay period it would depend on to adopt a definition of after which requires immediacy right that's what you're asking for me to sleep like the data has to be i'll put it right after mediately after yes ok but the word after is the only word that appears in the client's right correct ok now let's look at column sixteen i did a search for after every where the word appears in the specifications doesn't appear very often but here's a workplace where it does it's state so this is after so you wait a selected access time then drive the data onto the bus right after right after so they knew that the word aster didn't necessarily in all cases connote immediacy because if it did why would they then say in the specification right after what's the point your honor i would i would go back to the way that the invention works with it wouldn't operate correctly unless the master knew at the time that the during the delay period you know there's a period when the bus is not going to be used in the controller can use it efficiently because there's no competition for it that doesn't matter whether or not the output comes back immediately at the end of that time period or two clicks later after that you have to come back at a time that's knowable by the master and all the other devices on the bus otherwise and we why what about because i was on i went to go sample the us at some other time i would have no idea if that's the data that i originally requested from you if i if i ever have a transaction request in this and i say deliver the data into clock cycles and i come back into clock cycles i have to know that that is the data that i have originally requested from that memory device if there is some arbitrary the times transpired twenty five and twenty six show representation as it's required to claim at the absolutely they do your honor as the board found as we explain our kloppers if you put a three in the rest of cram or six the total transaction time is three clock cycles so changing the parameter from a one two or three it changes the total transaction time from four and b represent does it actually work that way if that's one of their arguments that that's not a real world memory device and that's it's just a simplified presentation but one of the things to keep in mind is that bennett was cited by it was relied on by the board not as evidence of some existing product that was on sale or in public use then into the patent and so whatever it describes is can be used for instance patient and meet the limitations of the claim that they could they anticipate regardless of whether they're simple five present such a value in parameters six dictates th configuration and that incidentally affects the time it doesn't represent the time you don't even select the configuration based on timing considerations right i would actually we disagree i think a fair keep saying the same thing it dictates the delayed effects the delay but isn't representative of the delay it is representative of delay because what benefit is trying to do is to is put a value of one in the register and that to lave the data i want to offical but you can the board doesn't even say that the board calls this indirect indicating a number of clock cycles they don't even try and save their representative i well know it the board actually does that then they will try to drag in representatives after indirectly by saying well it's the broadest reasonable claim construction and then we have to argue about whether that's reasonable or not well i actually disagree that this construction is just  they what the value stored in that register there is a value that represents i'm reading from the board's opinion the six parameter one or three indirectly indicates a relative number of clock cycles transpired indirectly indicates they're not saying it wrecked it's representative well it is well they my other words just as judge moore pointed out you were more accurately reflecting the board's decision when you did say with your broader terms it affects it or it controls it but not that it's representative of regard as the the board by the way say that it's representative i've read it over they indirectly dictate corresponding is another way they say it where they say it actually is representative i i meets the definition of what representative is under like for instance to to run a case directly rate that related to stand for or be a reasonable proxy for the latter item so the value of parameter six in the register is at least context is won every time so there's no extra arbitration involved with the twenty five who tell me how you feel what your arguments are related to the time period and whether or not this claim requires that the value and the time period to begin immediately upon sending the read and to have the output come back immediately at the end sure you believe that that's necessary for us to decide or well the reason that would be resolved the reason that rambus is trying to read that limitation into the claim as to what the specific amount of time to transpire is is because they say sixteen talks about specific times just prefer it's not quiet and as your honor had mentioned that column sixteen lines ten to thirteen it just says that and i just time one would indicate that the slaves should not access the bus amount of time transpires when there's the output of the person i guess the question is what is the plain meaning of after right and this is the plain meaning in the context of this claim immediately thereafter i mean that's the only way to maximize the efficiency that was created by the convention which is to have a period of time during which the controller knows it can freely use the bus because it's not going to competed competing demands but those purposes and uses you know but i have to construe what's the word after means right context of this patent you know quite frankly and perhaps it's the military style in which i raise my children but if i tell them clover you're after you're done with that i expect them at my feet the minute they're done with it and maybe that's unique to me but i do tend to but i think it's important to focus on what the actual plain language is and if there are different meanings of the term after well they should have clarified that when they filed the application and put this claim and they could have said immediately after the time to the amount of time transpires or something like that just because it's on my mind you have standing on the that is allows you to be a part of the re exam why are you here in this court you have to have you know constitutional jurisprudence you have to have a direct rejection and then micron appealed and then the board reversed the examiner they appealed that and the statute allows us to participate as an athlete  this is exactly how the times just preferred it's not required arbitration every time that's simply not correct there is no device that can win arbitration every time arbitration depends on the instantaneous condition on the bus so even though it was rated a figure twenty five a and b of having one first instance a bigger thirty five shows that in a real transaction across the figure twenty five configuration you will have arbitration losses most of the time and in fact bennett said that the normal situation is that you will experience multiple arbitration losses before you finally win with respect to judge moore your question about the exact amount of time as it takes to beat a dead horse but i do want to point out in a column  nine starting at line eighteen starting line eighteen i believe there is a discussion there that doesn't relate the word after to this idea of delivering the data after a specified time and if you just indulge me for a moment i'll read from that paragraph so that the data block transfer curves later at a time specified in the request back to control information preferably beginning on an even cycle the device begins a data block transfer almost immediately with the device base as a device initiate certain functions such as setting up memory addressing before the bus access phase begins the time after which the data block is driven on to the bus lines is selected from the value stored in this way access time registers so