communication cycle so with that in mind and like to start with the transmitting limitation and how it should be properly construed the claim limitation says the hub transmitting information to the remotes to establish the communication cycle cycle and the or it's well the board said that regardless of how many intervals are in the cycle the hug me to only transmit the required information for a it wasn't it issues but what this court said was that the hub must quote define and transmit the start time in duration each communication cycle and its constituent intervals and in advance of any transmission opportunity slot so and time each of those intervals up sent by the before the remotes can transmit which makes sense because the passage i started with made clear that one of the purposes is to avoid collision so if you don't have that information for all of the within the cycle it doesn't say it doesn't limit the number of intervals the hub must send information for so you could have you could have five is it that issue is not squarely before the court but even if we go beyond the constituent intervals language that was in the court's opinion in the metro on a case i point to some other supporting evidence case it was both decisions it came out recently the same time so the born head after tonight was not in the proceedings below but after the trial before there was a decision the decision came down from this court considering the transmitting limitation which had not really been the area of focus in the in the i p r previously but under the construction it created new issues parties and addressed and we made our arguments based on transmitting at that time after this court hit earthquake the issue is the among others the the collision issue that this court noted in medrash that if you have an interval in which there is uncontrolled communication which to jump ahead a little that's period see in n colleague certainly pointed out in his brief you know that is a limited exception that goes to a different claim it's claim three and that that is a contention based period but it's solely for the purpose of requesting band within the here up just a few other things on that claim construction point transmitting i did want to point out the specification twenty seven line fifty seven talks about control information that quote defines the starting time natarajan reference and said quote as a result of the schedule protocol there would appear to be more power consumed that if the complete information concerning all the intervals in functions during each complete cycle is communicated at one multiple interviews or intervals including periods a b and c and that the duration of frame is subdivided into three intervals it wasn't in the context of a claim construction argument but nonetheless they were approaching at the same way at least at least an  is the factual distinctions of prior art i think this case in some ways is a little bit more simple than it seems because atlas is really arguing under the wrong standard if you j pettigrew in her two decisions which were quite thorough and detailed made numerous factual findings that are supported by substantial evidence citations to the text of the references themselves and to the testimony of think used expert dr haase in really with the assertions of its turnings about the facts of the case contrary to findings made by the word supported by substantial evidence not for the first time on appeal which your response to list topics argument about plurality meaning all of the so first i would look at the language of the transmitting limitation judgement transmitting limitation  communication cycle so the language in a very straightforward way makes clear that the transmission of information has to establish a plurality of intervals when i heard mr topic saying was the claim language has a sort of additional request interval eighty six which mr topic referred to that is a contention based interval and what that means is the remotes are allowed to transmit at the same time and if their transmissions happen to interfere they won't get an acknowledgement back require perfect avoidance of collisions judgments question pointed out there is an advantage to avoiding collisions for example in the scheduled allocated transmission opportunities are there not that is some remote yes he is and it's reasoning leading to a distinct claim construction that the court came up with which was put forward by the parties and the question addressed when this establishing transmission takes place not what the construction would have required this scheduling information to be transmitted in the prior communication cycle so the remotes would have the entire schedule prior to any interval within that communication cycle not would obviously be the most efficient and found that the establishing transmission house take place in advance of the entire communication cycle and that was the claim construction that this were in part overturn the i thought a broader construction that the transmitting  establishing information can come later but that means that the remotes don't have that scheduling information for at least some part of the communication cycle and so that's why i say of the courts prior opinion leaves open that the of have to be established by this transmission are not all of the intervals in the communication cycle because the courts can't claim destruction or allows that schedule to come in the middle of the communication cycle or even towards the end as long as it's before the first opportunity of the remotes to transmit in that cycle so the court's prior claim construction does not say in any way shape or form that all of the intervals have to be established through that establishing transmission and i don't think there's any support in the seven three four patent specification for that idea either at least not support that is sufficiently strong to get you past the clear of language of the claims which says transmitting information to establish  seven thirty four patent talks about power savings for example as being significant or considerable but not perfect not maximal not optimal and that's really the kind of construction that's really the kind of language in the seven thirty four patent that atlas would need even if atlas could rewrite the transmitting plain language to say something like there is a communication cycle that is have had their timing established and that's because in interval a h now rajon transmits the timing of all of those intervals the length of all those intervals and so at that point in time all of the remotes right in the beginning of the communication cycle know the entire length and start time of the communication cycle and all of the constituent intervals there in it so even rewording the claims in the way that mr topic suggested in his opening argument wouldn't get you past not a one fifteen to one twenty three of his declaration and there's no contrary evidence the only argument that puts forward on appeal is that there is a possibility that the timing of the  change but that really gets the standard backwards the question is not whether the some possibility that it could change the question is whether the board found that it didn't change which it did on an expansion thirty nine and whether that decision was supported by substantial evidence which it is based on the text on john and based on the testimony of dr hossam i don't know how atlas can actually get past the appeal to transmit ter limitations and switching limitations now is supported by substantial evidence and that was really hasn't shown that the board or that no reasonable person could have come to a different decision then the one it is advocating in the transmit term limitation the remotes are required to power off their transmitters during times other than those which they would be allowed to transmit and atlases argument is that in  possibility that two remotes can transmit at the same time and their transmissions would interfere with the mother but interference is always a possibility in radio systems it doesn't have to come from within the system it could come from a microwave or garage door opener or something like that but the more important point is that if the remotes are allowed to transmit that's not under the claims they don't have to have a clear path to transmit they don't have to have free access to the airwaves within the radio system that limitation the house is required to listen to the airwaves and certain remotes may have a sort of standing reservation to transmit like a standing seven o'clock reservation in a restaurant in the non rajon system the remotes can cancel that reservation but they have to send a message to the help sensually and then the cancels the regulation the claims require that the listen to the airwaves and if the remotes don't use that schedule opportunity to transmit then the hubble cancel that reservation essentially that's why we have a secondary reference which the board sustained the bell of reference which teaches the correct cancellation mechanism and in the dollar efron's the communicators send out reservation requests everybody no time is reserved for certain communicator but if the communicator the radio doesn't transmit during that time frame the other remotes are going to listen to that they can hear the absence of any transmission and they're going to use that as a signal that they can cancel the reservations like not showing up to your thursday night standing in a reservation and having the restaurant staff across you off the hook because you didn't show the board found specifically all of those facts but that's how the ballot system works the bell or reference and this is specifically the citation on appendix page twenty three column eleven lines three to nine nat the communicators in the bell reference listen for the absence of transmission and then make the decision to remove the in the last thirty seconds i want to talk about claim twenty one this is a very short argument in the opening brief two thirds of the page and it was states in her age not her rajon stablish is the period the request it is not correct that that is present in all of the claims or even any of the claims issue that's the period that with a benefit is being contention based it corresponds to claim three which is not at issue if you look  there is reasoning and then there is a conclusion that comes from that reasoning in the conclusion is what went into the claim charge and what the court says if the ha does not define intervals when the hub will transmit to the remotes and when each remote will transmit  communication cycle so i wasn't talking about being preferred to sign up being central to constrain that claim that this is a that's an essential part of what the claims require and that's why in addition to the period seen issue