in writing and with particularity of each claim challenge the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based and the evidence that supports the grounds for the trial further and this is from thirty five so what is it that you think is your best argument here with respect to have legs errors by the well the first error that the p t asked me and probably the most serious one is that the function so it says they're not they're still in balance but then when you come back and switch your position they say well it get even under that they're still in balance but i think in this case what if you look at the time line the patent on  still lacking if you look at the reply which is in the appendix it doesn't identify the function it doesn't identify the corresponding structure and it doesn't say where in the prior all these items from the cars  when the board put in means close functions like construction that i believe is correct for the reasons i indicated in the appeal really it wasn't until the final written decision that we receive something provide the proper analysis for any other means plus function limitations that is the petitioner they're not identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structural material or acts corresponding to why they mean suppose function claim limitations is in the appendix so i think it's clear at this point that everybody knows that means post function claim limitations and even when you look at the final written decision there's limitations that are missing there's components in the car responding structure from the pap that are missing from the primary which one if the problem is missing that's a component that was identified in the structure of the district court's claim construction and it was also included in the final written decision for the very first time in the process the n v ram is also missing in the they want even tool able to identify all of the components in the car responding structure never mind get to the ultimate decision that it does the prior art teacher suggest that all of the components that are in the car responding portion of the specification the corresponding structure are in the prior rock so there's components that have us and so if there's components that are missing how could they possibly sh order to find the mean suppose function claim limitation to be obvious and that was a very rough even at the last thing that the peter how does is the issue of final written decision and even the final written this edition doesn't that testimony doesn't identify all the components which are in the cars than the structure that corresponds to the function that's recited in the means of prosecution element nor does he indicate that commands to the base station so this isn't that complicated you look at the phrase alphanumeric data you see that the word precedes it so then you're thinking well are from america if you go to the previous page it tells you what it's for it says generating alpha numeric data from selected ones of key operations at the hands so the phrase from column thirteen concurrently transmitting the alpha numeric data and commands for the base station in light of the previous limitation that i just read to you  sufficient to meet this claim limitation rather there has to be from current transmission of alphanumeric data a particular type of our phone number of data the alpha numeric data that was generated by trick they have to clean it off it has to transmit to the base station an identification of what number to call it doesn't have to transmit the phone number but like whether i have speed dial of whether my  well i would think that would just be one commander not both the command and the alpha numeric data and then alpha numeric data that was what was alleged to be the alpha numeric data by the petitioner was the phone number and not just some indication