please the court counsel were here today because the board although it cited the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim construction standard well beyond that standard in committing to basic  specification this claim does not talk about or addressing that stuff later so they were it was a different type of process and they were different types of steps just to answer your other question well you did but i'm still puzzled about what is the board bottom line judges that reversal with respect to either of these construction particularly the second one with respect to order both of them would render the board's decision with regard to talk to someone who sheena and correct the broad mysteries of constructions is not a limited limited limitless of the standard and it must be reasonable and why the specification construction cannot be divorced from the spec and the broadest reasonable construction rubric does not give the p p l an unfettered license to import limitations to immigration anything credited in uniform nature of the descriptions of the invention in this case in combination with rejection of a prior art method to limit the scope of the of the invention particularly whereas here there a descriptions of the primary purpose of the invention and held the invention overcomes problems or the prior or there are numerous clear repetitive references to the five step patterning nature beginning in the development in the specification mentioned in specifications and whether that his spirit you know applies to the pockets of approach you understand what i do and we see if i can answer that question the answer is it doesn't apply because in order for talk is what to anticipate there has to be an additional the reason why this is relevant with respect to this conversation is that the combination of elements is with respect to claim one of the instance you think he has to be before doing well the claims dictate to us before that yesterday and so the claims and the specification of the board from right correct on that's right the boards the board found that the steps did not have to be language refers to the completed results of the prior step those steps must be performed in order we don't agree with you it was back to talk as now with the five steps your point your point he would focus because there has to have to actually be an intervening step so that's why that would differentiate talk as well as the order would also differentiate over the prior of the order or the new step well they have to be conveyed in that order without an interv step but there is no teaching and again there's no teaching in this patent that would support the right to the inclusion in these claims of an intervening step with taco bell it's not in there if i tried to do that everyone twelve problem all over the place steps what i'm asking you is there disparagement in the specification using a different five steps than is included here in the claims and i thought you said earlier that there isn't any support it has to have an additional it has to have an additional edge stop step that's the point and so you can't it has to have an additional photo of our of the staff because there are five different ones that don't get you to this  both the experts admitted that the method the process the steps the order that they take all result in different it so talk is al it doesn't in order for talk a salad to anticipate it has to have additional steps and so the answer your question is yes when every one of your five stops you know which has a five different step why don't you argue that instead of this whole thing about claim construction five versus six which in claim one which doesn't talk your theory about the steps having to be and we're talking this hour does disclose all five steps recites the actual order in which it's supposed to be so the claims themselves dictate that the steps are in order that c has to be completed before day because it talks about said operative semiconductor the special occasion says that it is the steps have to be in that the steps he does not have to be completed and there are going is belied by the specification the specification part about it being formed it uses then they are in the act with us and they're after and ultimately talks about the the five eight nine pattern in the summary of the invention and elsewhere says that the goal of that invention was to eliminate one process and to have five steps there is no reference by processing steps and it has the same it accomplishes its five steps in a way similar to what the specification says as the abstract and column six lines fifty two fifty eight say one of the route ways in which the pattern chivas five steps by eliminating one is to combine two steps which allows the video holes to be opened at the same time but the end result is the same t f t that is specified in the preamble of claim one claim one is very generic as to saying that is it is performing it is forming a means simply above and we we get that from by looking at step one g of claim one which says you form a pixel electrode on the substrate there is no dispute step in the pattern but the the the the operative semiconductor at best what the patent talks about as the operative semiconductor is at best ambiguous in the you you need only carry out five it doesn't say you can't carry out six but and they point was that talk is our fact only that's five yes it is and and so it doesn't run into the notion other steps correct and the order the number of steps is relevant only to the alternative ground of course shino anticipating certain claims because the shino has more than five steps that the boards ultimate conclusion but claims two three five and six are invalid stands even if this court were to reverse the p t a have won the number of steps because  steps one of the photo with a graphic steps as used to form what's called it at stuff but the critical which is one c n one the however you define what the operative semiconductor means operative has to have some meaning semiconductor and that's shown if you look at column five where it says when it talks about the operative semiconductors film six it is pointing to the film six in the finished and the end plus you don't have an operative semiconductor because as dr white said if it is just what is put down as the film it'll short so you have to do that step which is this which is done at the same time the source and drain are done in talk as our which combines steps e indeed it doesn't eliminate those steps it performs those steps it does it in one step it edges the source and drain and then a second x is a portion of the semiconductor films to create the knives that allows the systemic inductive ya program it it basically eliminates the short which is undisputed and so i think if the court  gets to the point of trying to determine on the order of steps what is step see and step the specification is ambiguous as to what it means is the operative semiconductor there are suggestions that it's the finished product it can't be just a semiconductor films because those those on appear in the final product and it can't be the islands because those aren't operative at any point in time without further modification and if that force has any further questions i'd be happy to answer them but i think just to summarize regardless of the outcome on the number of photo lithographic steps we prevail and the board because the specifications doesn't show and they prior art didn't show where the operative semiconductor was located at a specific location where the  thirty one of our movie brave i won't read it for the chords there was no misunderstanding if the at the appendix of page three sixty six three sixty three the pelleas expert specifically indicated that step c requires specification that we've cited to which is which is the specification talks about forming that that step is formed and completed in order for them and this goes back to judge you just question judge there are more than five steps but there are only that claim that's done at the very end column six lines thirteen sixteen through twenty talks about how you do that how you use the source and drain electrodes that are already there as the mask so it's not a photo of the heart of the stuff we don't put something down and steps and in order for there to be five of the same steps they have to combine c and d that's this whole argument they have to combine they have to say that you don't have to perform them in the order in which they're put in there but the claim language and the specification