i'd like to first raise what i think is the most fundamental issue in this appeal and that is the board's failure to credit michael graphic submission of the source code evidence and arguments based on the source code evidence so let me start formally before we get there i believe and i have to look back it felt history confirm this that that amendments were made that didn't get injured in the resulting in the claims that actually issued no i think  so i don't think we can point you to a specific harm as a result of that mistake other than the general observation that the board was somewhat careless in its analysis which i think pervades the issues that i'm about to raise ok so the the back to the issue the fundamental problem the board's opinion is that micro graphics so i started going back to the construction of interactive backdrop to the board construed interactive vector object to be a computer software object that includes at least a mathematical description of a graphical image and a definition so that the graphical image response to events that much was proposed by the petitioners it was a draft about of the what it was not disputed by micro graphics that the petitioner's own construction what was disputed is what is the significance of computer software object so the board made additional claim construction holdings the computer software object is a variable comprising both routines and data that is treated as a discrete entity the board also observed that computer software object is implemented a programming language and then one computer software object can contain another computer software which brings us to the evidence before the board in light of question the petitioner submitted question of the virtual reality modeling language book that describes the armel documents and nodes  and all that which of course by now familiar with the face of the book shows that it contains a see the full of source code that describes a parser which shows how the v arnold documents are converted into computer software objects and  of our argument in the problem the reason we know they couldn't have looked at it is because the board hinged its entire anticipation based on patient on the fact that a v r milne of the anchor which the board problem is that's not a computer software object what's written in that we are male documents not a computer software of the computer software objects that result which you're describing the source code the board did not look at that evidence clearly  was the subject of much of our argument and opposition to the board's anticipation finding reject it in your point is the best source when they reject the only finding we have is anticipation they never mention the arguments they fine but our point is that finding is not supported by substantial evidence because the only evidence in the record of what computer software objects are created is the source code there's the to the nodes it admitted passion calls them objects but he doesn't call them computer software objects the board says the computer software object is implemented in a programming language we are males not a programming language the board says you have to have both routines and data in this computer software conclusively establishes that the objects that are created the computer software objects are not one is not contained within the other there is not an interactive vector object that comprises those two characteristics and if i may raise a couple of additional points the there's also the issue of the limitation which affects some of the claims in a five hundred seventy three to the location of the vector objects this was another instance of the board giving an incomplete analysis  commanding it's not of me right it's not a property defining a command that's correct your honor you've you've restated the argument perfectly the issue is the petitioners assert asserted originally that debbie debbie debbie an anchor was the property to funny command now they have said in their briefing that they didn't say that but it's right there in the board's opinion the board actually says they said it in the board acknowledges that there's some conflict between it's the petitioners observation or assertion that debbie debbie debbie anchor is the property to funny command command just like jump and just like all the other commands there in the specification the board simply found that the name field is a is a property defining a command it's not it's just not if you know and can i decide i guess and understand if if we were to agree with that point the property point would we simply have a great reverse on the anticipation of the claims that are that's correct your honor it would be a reversal because there's not not an everything but  know we deposed their expert their expert says to put transform note in front of them he says now that there's nothing in this example that has location data and then the board made the finding anyway but then not crediting last year because  couldn't so it made the finding anyway the transformer knows is somehow imparts location data the problem is the board based its reasoning on its earlier reasoning on interaction ector object but the issue is there is no showing in the understanding mr wilson's argument that i may be misunderstanding it is that you don't have the required computer software project until you look and see what the software does know what a description board found it supported by significance instanter evidence that i will describe that the verbal objects in the verbal code on the server is what discloses all of the elements of the interactive actor object including the computer software object part of it the fact that that code subsequently gets transmitted parsed compiled into c plus plus objects that may be so structurally syntactically and semantic direct your honor's attention and specifically judge trotter to answer your question to a part of the board's decision on a sixteen a sixteen identifies a figure eleven point one which talks about the structure and then it says at the end of the paragraph quote after the document has been received by the b l browser it is parse then a renderer uses the parsed description to create visible representations of the object described in the verbal document and displays them the object in the verbal document are known as nodes in quote the argument that the board never considered code is simply wrong there was significant briefing on it the board asked questions about it an oral argument the board simply found clime that i claims talks about data that is operable to be downloaded that data whatever happens afterwards the focus is what is the server side data say here the circle  that's what's operable to be downloaded the fact it subsequently gets downloaded and turned into something else is not what is anticipatory the anticipatory anticipation case is based on the verbal code and the pattern is very very clear about this in addition to the preamble specifically i'd like to direct your honor's attention to the patents description of the server side or offer a ball code which is on a sixty nine  column for line fifty to fifty seven this describes that the vector graphics file may be embedded in the network accessible file the network accessible file of course can be an h t m l hypertext markup language the patents preferred in bottom it uses a markup language on the server side and that's where it says our vector objects are virtual virtual reality markup language describes a server side application which describes where the objects are both pass and the patent are not talking about the post downloaded post parse post compiled code they're talking about the server side code in a markup language it standard the reason why that's important is if you look at the court's claim construction and specifically this is on page a fourteen through fifteen they say that quote the  limitation is a characteristic describing an interaction to be carried out by computer software in response to user action then the court further gave an example of the status line which is on figure four  the patent and mr wilson says this line actually does contain an instruction just it doesn't it contains a characteristic that gets subsequently turned into a command it identifies a command the claim language say property defining a command not that the property has the command i think the clearest articulation of this your honor is if i can point you to a part of the specification which is on column eleven line and this is in the context of describing figure seven which illustrates the process in advance for vector objects on the client system quote if the event occurred within the active area of the vector object the yes branch of the decisional step two six two leads to the step two six four step two six for the vector graphics tension make it the properties of the vector object proceeding in two step two six six it may be determined if the properties define a command for the event if no command is defined for the event the no branch of decisional step leads to the end of the process if the properties define a command for the event the yes decisional branch leads step two six six to step two six eight and up to six eight the vector graphic extension may perform the command defined for the event step two six eight leads to the end of the process you look to see if there has a property if it has a property then you look to see what the command is then the command gets executed by the  in the context of an overall object which to find its behavior but the point of the courts before the board's claim construction which isn't being appealed is that all you need is a characteristic that lead to the execution of a command later i didn't think that's what the  construction said about something that would lead to work with lead or whatever it's likely associated with a command to be performed in response to an event and so i like to direct your honor's attention to a fourteen through fifteen of the board's decision which was construed this limitation quote we further determined that the property may be specified by a single value that describes a command e g the status line at me not provide all the instructions to execute the command e g to the splay th a command have to be in the field itself not be in some other part of the your w w w anchor so the interactive vector object contains a property that property identifies a command or defines a command that's the claim language it doesn't require the code you say the property is the name field the property is the name field in the context of a w w w anchor no it's not just a it's not just the  correct it's not you can't look at that in isolation because it's not in an object the object type defines its behavior and the behavior the context of the field means jump to that you are up so why why can you say that  most correct your honor did you do that before the board i thought you said very specifically the name field is the property so if you look at what the board did and it did this on pages twenty two through twenty three  addresses this exact inconsistency that was articulated by the patent owner and it did in the context of saying that if you look at the field of the w b anchor node it specifies the u r l and it discloses the property because a user clicks on it the user goes to that u r l in other words the board was looking at the field in the context of an object but importantly and this is really important the board was looking at the consequence of doing all of that the board was looking at as a structural or functional limitation that says if you do all these things then you need to claim because that's what the pattern describes an interactive ector object that when you click on it you go someplace else because she has a vector object we click on it you go someplace else what the pattern owners trying to do here and in the location and in its other arguments is to myopically look at individual parts of the vector object which ignores the syntax of  uses separator nodes and other group notes to combine objects together to achieve the effect that structure that function that result is entirely what the patent  two responses to that your honor the first of which is what the board cited is not the limited argument that the w w anchor has to have within it the location that's not how pressure works specifically i'll direct your honour's attention to a twenty four of the board's decision and it has a sentence here that clarifies its argument on this point quote the transformer node changes the position orientation size and center of any know those that follow it in a group the board was using in the group which includes the separator node to refer to what is contained within that structure the border also cited on that page nine for nine which is a part of the pressure code this code demonstrates that when you have a separat node that has a transfer node within it after the transfer node you have an object know it like a sphere node the transfer node would change the location of that object it's the separator no the groups them together to have that effect object itself would be the spear because it defines a shape the interactive vector object would be w w enter plus the shape ok so then the context i apologize your honor but in the context of the location then it would be the separator node that contains all three of those but the problem is the separator not the interactive record object it is in the context of the code cited by the executed by code depend on other code any no's within a group node all adopt the group nodes frame of reference of the separator node at its essence tells us when and where the frame of reference exist the board then uses that and then identifies that based on the patchy code that's what's disclosed the ct used to separator node which is one way to do it and passion an expert describes a different way just use  cannot either way the result is the same you determine the location because you have an anchor node a transform node and then a sphere node and you have the structure so that they work together the idea that that particular argument that the petitioners made before the board in their making here is that the claims require that the interactive vector object be operable to be downloaded that's what and so you don't have to look at the source code you can just look at the b r m l documents the problem that they've got is that the v r m l documents are just a markup language they are not a programming language they do not describe computer software objects the computer software objects are described by the source code it's true that the the arm l document is what is downloaded but the computer software objects that result from that downloading are described in the source code not in the army all documents there is no evidence in some sort of strike there is no the property defining a command the the i think judge toronto you've hit right on the appropriate issue and that is the property defining comm well what the if they can't be at the same time the interactive vector object and contain itself effectively whereas they claim language that say to you that that's one thing it's actually anchor is just a hyperlink it just provides hyperlinks functionality it is not as i described earlier if you look at the actual computer software object that's what it provides and that's it it doesn't contain a sphere it just provides the hyperlink functionality interactive vector object can't be its own property the near the i'm sorry your honor what i'm saying is the board made made it clear that the petitioners asserted that the the anchor interactive act or object or i'm sorry the debate of giving anchor note was the property defining command that's on page twenty two they go on to say basically what we're saying it's not up to it's not necessarily in material conflict with that because we're at unifying the name you have to have a object that contains that property defining it to me and a mathematical description of a graphical image so now you have to go to something higher like the separator no which the board never rendered any finding on the board never said that's an interactive vector out the the problem across the board here is that the boards looking at the arm l tax documents and not looking at the computer software objects that result that's why you have all these syntactic problems when you look at the syntax of we are m to figure out what's included within water how one thing like to transform no defects something else it's a it's a they're looking in the wrong place for the proper place to look for computer software objects as in programming language c plus plus code that we submitted in the boarding