good morning hours may please the court we have two issues here this morning number one is the issue related to veto any claim twenty two and whether the board properly construed the term sector circuit allowing the bias voltage if you want to get arbitrarily close to the ground the other question is deals with the remaining the remainder of the challenged claims and as whether the combination of park and baker renders the things up one is on page seventeen of the blueberry and last beginning of the last paragraph it says holmes interpretation of the plain meaning should be adopted ye closer to zero v than the one threshold the whole below is taken out of context and that this quote the statement below did not report to define the plain meaning of the claimed term we discuss the specification and file history about what that means and we talk about the specification and figure three a the improvements over figure three and we talk about claim twenty two dollars being allowed based on the is here your honor and its appeal and so i don't see any inconsistency there that's what we said we said with the limitation was we said we pointed to pieces of the spec and the file history as to providing meaning to that and then we said is there anything else that explicitly brings it to the board's attention that hey there needs to be a phillips type construction here because the plain meaning isn't doing it for intensity five is the extent of the discussion of that particular point in being arbitrarily close and that was also the distinction that was made during the prosecution history where the supermoto art had a similar structure and the distinction between application claim that it was thirty four  of arbitrarily close to that meaning i mean it the claim itself is functional this language it's very functional and it talks about not setting the threshold voltage trained it talks about setting something else cannot arbitr pattern specification talks about a lot of different possible circuits and but it's not claimed that way instead it's claimed with functional language and your reading and something for you're saying you're reading more and i guess the the fundamental problem with the combination of beggary park is that nowhere in bigger or park is there any teaching or suggestion to to use an inverter with a substantially a trip that has a trip point substantially insensitive to the voltage change part doesn't say anything nobody nobody argues to the contrary that part nobody or all x expert testimony said that  insensitive to voltage variations in that it may be a subtle difference you're out of but that's the that's the important difference there's no suggestion to do the math in the way that their experts suggest what about parks reference to says it's it's good to not have the signal various much but part says nothing about using the inverter to do that part presents an improved circuit design and no where mentions the inverter the prior art had inverters so that you know it's there's no there's nothing in park to draw that inference from there just park says we'd like to make it better and here is our specific same chart says we'd like to make it better i thought parks say we want to make it so the detector is impervious to changes inverter they should muck with to accomplish that goal particularly when they have to put in other circuit elements to accomplish that so that goal yes but there's no mention of the homework problem itself in addition but they do cite the the paragraph that it's not so but we submit that there's not much different than having a piece of prior art with alternative theories they are the broad based on the extensive evidence found that the top simply discloses the limitation of claims twenty to the detector circuit limitation now promise argues that the board should have interpreted that language to mean and include  the plain ordering meaning of the term it's what it say's it's arbitrary close to zero and it doesn't go above it doesn't become positive is it your view that once they say plain ordinary meaning they couldn't rely on the prosecution his this specific info to interpret the claim you are they certainly could have looked at it to see if the plane and or in meaning was consistent with the specification and prosecution history but i think that's the issue we have here is their arguments have been shifting so if you look at even if you say we believe they did not raise a claim construction it should be for the board we don't raise a lever lightly this is one of those cases that they simply needed to do more before the board but even if you consider at five that its construction is verbatim before this court than what it was before the board that's simply not true if you look at page fifteen of the blue brief and compare that to the construction that's offered to the board it's different of the argument you are you'll see that when you compare that to blueberry seventeen which is what they offered before the board they said it's circuit that allows the design target value of the b b to be close to zero in any case closer to zero than one special bill asking me about the prosecution history and the specification their support that their point of the arguments have been shifting so if you look at their blue brief again if you look at bloomberg nineteen they said look this is going to leave right because the question claim constructions a question so whether their argument shifts or not is irrelevant because it's a matter of law i have to decide what the claim term means correct yes you are if you want to keep spinning your wheels on shifting that's fine i'll tell you i don't think they waived it i feel quite strongly about that maybe my colleagues disagree so if you want to spend more time on the word shifting it's at your peril sure your honor i can jump to the construction claim for structural point and address why we believe it's the incorrect construction that they're offering so game starting at the plain language of the claim you don't  words design target you don't see the words target value in the claim you don't see her threshold or page anywhere in claim twenty two so the plain language of the claim simply doesn't support them then you turn to the specification let's take a look at the specification nowhere does the specification use the word designed target value it's nowhere to be found and certainly it does not require the construction that's advocated by promise that it sais is the plain and ordinary meaning of the if you look at the passages that promise cites to the specification again none of those passages get to the claim construction that they want this court to adopt are you looking at my column three lines around and fifty two dollars for fifty one dollars of the prosecution history what is what they point to and on the prosecution history their position is that the prosecution history provides a clear and unambiguous meaning for this claim again that's not it and that's not what we call a plane or immunity so if you look at the prosecution history nobody or in these pages will you find the definition that they're asking this court to adopt for this term to the contrary if you go to page four hundred and fifty one dollars and i want to highlight foot court to basically import limitations into the claim that are simply not present in fact there are other claims stall and your honor is that actually they knew how to claim the structure so for example if you look at claim twenty four interpret this distinction from figure three a in the prior art and did it overcome the rejection certainly you are in so the what the fight history tells us these arguments after they made these arguments examine is that a lot of the claim so so whatever it is they said in this sentence cause the examiner to allow the claim how long is the sentence not support the construction they're arguing for as opposed to the one that you're arguing sure you wanted so let me explain so again if you look at these couple of paragraphs nowhere do they actually say that the claim term arbitrarily close to zero requires it design target value we don't see dollars where it says claim thirty four dollars is supported by applicant specification so that's i believe what judge moore was referring to i think our point is fairly simple here that if you look at the prosecution history no they're in the prosecution history do you see the kind of words have the language right but i don't see that language here as well the right so and so i think the closest that they get your honor is at the top of page thirteen it says but transistor and thirty also prevents review b from becoming closer to zero then damage but again our point is they're talking about the structure of thier circuits and then in the footnote they say we're not limiting our claims to that structure and if you look at claim twenty four dollars claim twenty four dollars claims that structure so this certainly knew how to claim the structure that they want this court to now essentially read into claim twenty two dollars so which is why and again this is a high bar that they have they want this is not to play in an ordinary meeting of this time they're asking this court to define this term in light of the prosecution history which is anything but it doesn't get them to where they want to be with respect to this claim so if you look at the totality of the evidence it simply does not get them to their claim construction like in light of your construction which is is quite a bit broader how would they have gotten around to keep your three a in the which is almost exactly like you know right so you are i'm glad you asked that because we do think there is a distinction between the toe and figure three a which the board found the board made of factual finding on the go before you get to that the last my answer my short is the one about under your construction how could they have successfully avoided figure three i don't see how the xander could have allowed the claims in light of figure three if he had your if if this was such a big deal they should have briefed this before the court and before the board and put that reference in the in the in the file history and before the record but if you actually look at the governor friends i did actually go look at it it actually is spec the prosecution history is far from clear it doesn't rise to the level of it clear and unmistakable disclaimer or a clear and because definition but that's certainly one explanation for what the examiner may have thought and with what was happening and we believe that what was happening and then you go to ito again there's a factual finding made by the board and the board is that entitled to deference on that i think we should look at that and that's an appendix eighteen in the board's final decision think again that's fatal to their argument even if you were to give anyway to their prosecution history arguments ito is simply different and the board made a factual finding on that point so unless your honour's have any other questions on this issue i like to move on to the trip invalid i think that still you raise an interesting issue which is part actually is the reason we have the motivation and then we actually had other reasons for the motivation to look at reference is another one we showed that provides the most what he ration to make the trip point insensitive paragraph one enough so so there is plenty of evidence in the record so little when you have that motivation and the baker simply tells you how do you how you manipulate the equation to get to the trip point right how do you make it insensitive and we have t there their expert agreed that one of skill had the requisite skills get to move manipulate and he said god help them if they don't know that so there is plenty of evidence in the record that supports the board's obviousness finding on this trip point of limitation and turning your honour's to the claim construction point the to the extent that there's any confusion as to what we're saying the construction is it is what we say and at age one thousand and seventy five that's what we're relying on and we think that the prosecution history doesn't fact support that particular construction mr moti made reference to the footnote in the prosecution history that says we're not limiting it to a specific structure and certainly we're not limiting it to the structure shown in figure five we're not they weren't saying that the claim was limited to the structure shown in figure five but they still were distinguishing structures that do what we do