may please the court and the board in this case apply to construction of displays a limited list and that limitation that reads the term and the notion of display out of the claim entirely that fundamental error dictated its approach the evidence and the outcome of the case and accordingly argues the court should they kate every man from board to consider it out of the proper construction for include the display limitation according to the board any function ality or data can be part of the limited list as long as it's within the window regardless of whether or not it's displayed on the screen of the device that that's there the claims and sells however make clear that they're limited list must be displayed so the way it is is that the application summary window must be configured to display to be displayed on the screen and that application summary window displays the limited list the specification is consistent with that it says that once the operation can you can you help clarify this i thought at least in one form of relatively common parlance we cock about a window not all of whose contents is visible at exactly the same time in particular going on here there may be something in the same window but not and that is displayed but is not displayed at the same time as everything else is well they're going to speak about what what constitutes a window in their actual testimony get back and forth and that may be a way of thinking about it but at least in terms of the claim itself is talking about display not potentially displayed or partially displayed it says the optician summary window will display a limited list so the limited list is inherently tied to what i eliminating from the screen the stuff that's required in the window but no longer displayed everything does get the split but that there's still something and if you think of it that way then you fail to prove that in the prior art something is missing right there something some function or data that's missing so that the full window including the part you have to get to by scrolling is not proved to have been limited to her and pat it says that once the application summary window is launched the core data of functionality is displayed and not partial is later accessed and as i was saying the entire purpose of this post invention was that you would have to go down through layers and layers and layers you would have an immediate list through a pop up the you could then access certain functionality of the phone without having to dig deeper that was a problem that the specification identified in the prior art but you did have to go hunting and pecking through brightened windows and layers and so the idea that it's not displayed immediately is inconsistent that entire thing and so the specification teaches that it has to be displayed in that the limited list is confined to what is displayed on the screen itself but be tied to the screen itself claim sixteen of the o two a patent is even clearer that to say that the summary window is on the display screen are displayed on the screen itself but that aside regardless of how you think of the window and how far it extends and whether or not it has multiple layers to it the claim language is still that the application summary window is displaying the limited list that is the limit of this is because it's tied to what is on the screen itself and displayed so and with respect to the prior decision there was no construction issue in that in that case no one was disputing or for had an issue with the construction of the plane itself that was purely a sufficiency of the evidence issue but this is what we have here is  when all the functionality and data are right there and accessible and that's an entirely consistent with what the atmosphere trying to do that is to put everything immediately on the screen for the user to to access out of the gate and you think that that reading sufficiently strong governance even under the standard yes cases like dell and the rest where you you can't just eliminate a limitation out of the claim itself in the board's analysis doesn't account for the display aspect of the limited list in and of itself so and it's clear that blanchard in fact doesn't provide all of the functionality or data on the screen there is as you can see through you scroll down there is additional functionality or data down further below that's not displayed and so it matters to the ultimate outcome of the board's determination and how if you this this entire issue could in the evidence that went t can use clarified what should i ask this this entire thing arises and unique situation in that l g asked for the the board to institute on both and on one plan instead only on blanchard but context of the cases already before the court ordered already at least made a determination with that it didn't seem the better course a lot of court to pass upon issues that are currently before it we just want to make sure that we raised the issue and make clear a position that if there are other proceedings and my understanding is the board on its own raises this issue and will address the issue if there is a i remain to do it understand the timing correctly your reply brief was i think you were fourteen and those are not asserted claims and l g case so what i meant earlier was that we do have to win on both appeals in the sense that we need the court to affirm the pizza cision in this current appeal and reverse and remand in the apple peel with which my friend of the arguing right after me appropriate l g complains about that in this current appeal they complained that they didn't have an opportunity to respond to the board's claim construction now in any i p r petition is the requirement of the petitioner to lay out how the challenge cla construed they never argued what they argue now on appeal that limited list is somehow somehow constrained by the divisive screen size what they said was that was that it should be construed according to plain meaning what they meant by that was that it is limited by the number of functions and data they did not mean that it was constrained by the size of the particular device or screen that only comes up in this current appeal and that is abundantly clear about what they expected the t his second deposition and appendix three two one one where he testified i thought everybody had interpreted the limited list of functions to mean that you wouldn't have all of the functions  mr morris i think this morning it is perhaps stressed not so much that the list has to be fewer than all the functions but that the lists that you're talking about say contemporaneously visible display screen your honor that's inconsistent with what the claim what the claim language what the intrinsic record and what the prosecution history the board's construction was entirely accurate in fact it is the construction that the parties actually adopted and used throughout the i p r proceedings there is nothing in the claims that restrict the limited less to what is shown on a particular device a screen there are specific embodiments in the patent that the claims refer to an application summary window that does display the list of at least one function from the first application and your earlier question was exactly right your honor you can have a window that displays a limited list even though or acquire scrolling down t to appendix forty column five beginning at line five it refers to it contacts manager application that displays phone numbers and e mail addresses for that list names of the people stored in the device if you then go to does that is not limited by its size in fact l g even concedes that at their grave brief at nine ten they can see that limited list can vary in size now there's also the scrolling body image yes yes i mean you could have an beginning at line six and appendix thirty nine column for beginning at line twelve and and and if you look at two dependent claims it will really drive home the point your honor if you look at the panic claims fourteen and fifteen which you can find functions exactly how you imagine a normal window with additional functions listed below use the opportunities to get to those functions and you scroll to reveal them and that is application summary window displaying a limited l t rather than impose any sort of artificial limit on the list based on screen sizes elegy would ask the court to do the patent says the exact opposite it says that any manner of presentation will work and if you look at appendix thirty nine column three beginning at line sixty two that's exactly what the patent says and any manner of presenting the common functions offered within an application and or data stored in that application will constitute a window and it doesn't make sense to limit the list according to a particular screen's size the pattern expressly says while it may be great for mobile telephones the invention works just as well for laptops and for desktop c s and in those the screens obviously bigger and you could see a list they didn't intend to limit a limited list by a particular devices screen s they bring up this claim differentiation argument so i want to briefly above address that it doesn't work in this particular instance for them for many reasons if you compare a claim one to claim three of course claim one can be a subset all the functions but it can also be a subset of less than all the functions and that's consistent with the computer program code of this particular instance of this particular invention which says that the user or the system designer can define and set out these limited lists in advance so it's meant to have that express flexibility but even if you were to say that claim one is coextensive with the dependent claim three this is one of those instances where the deep  the independent claim dog and the reason for that is because of course a limited list is going to be a subset of something and all the parties agree to that in fact l g conceded that during prosecution the patentee defined open quote the limited list in claim one as a subset of all of the functions offered by given application and you can see that an elegy is blue brief page thirty one at no eight there's other prosecution even dispute that in the i p r proceedings it's expert at appendix three two one zero was asked well you understand though to a patent is designed to take functions that are available within an application and bring them to the application summ window correct the experts answer as long as it's a subset and again and elegies blue brief at page fourteen you could see that in discussing the limited list they equate the limited list with a subset so  reliance on claim differentiation is simply misplaced in this instance in fact it violates it's own argument because they're trying to suggest that the claim independent claim to some how narrower than the dependent claim in that they're saying that claim one requires a limitation based on the devices screen size and if they're not saying that then their own claim differentiation argument works against them because then you have claimed one and claim thirteen both limited by the device question you're really getting at is that it would really be futile the board in dealing with the apple i p r are ready determine that start on his own was insufficient sure maybe l g makes a different argument so maybe that they have that argument but back to judge malaise comment it is way untimely the s s decision came out of april twenty thousand two thousand and eighteen they just submitted their notice of something it's true that it's been eight months but that to them they did it's not like they filed a brief in which you know after april twenty fourth and omitted it from that or we didn't have oral argument or anything like that and i'm having a little trouble seeing why handicap in this instance this is their issue they surely knew about s s they could have brought it up early what has happened during that time frame well the parties have invested the time and resources for perry for this hearing by the time that you are considering this motion this whole case will have been taken under submission there is a cost and time there is a cost and resources and everyone has been dedicated their attention to preparing for this now the other question i ask is why did l g bring this up earlier they haven't n you don't actually have a stake in whether the remaining claims namely the ones only in this i p o in these ip are is it not in the apple i p o it's survival your honor i believe that's correct because i against l g there would be nothing to proceed on if he were to affirm that that decision in the apple deal the fact that they disagree with the result doesn't give them the opportunity to have a redo a new claim construction is going to happen second on substantial evidence there was plenty to support the board's decision the fact that they're trying to come up with new arguments on appeal doesn't work and finally on the an apple and that will dispose of the issue entirely turning back to a few points i call being made with respect to whether or not the new construction etc it has been our position throughout that the limited list is confined to what is displayed at appendix seventy our petition laid out specifically that the individual windows in blanchard in the we're talking about is that like three twenty window notion of displayed even the quotation of the block which ation that the board pulls out his deposition testimony says that there is one functionality displayed and there is additional ones and with regard to it's on page thirty two eleven of the appendix it says the board resolved some issues and say you've now conceded those points when all throughout or our view has ben that each of the windows in blanchard three twenty not three twenty three twenty four but three twenty is the application summary window that displays a limited list that's been our view throughout we have not tried to expand on that it so it's not a new argument or a new construction that is then our consistent position throughout now it's just that the board adopted a claim construction and then made certain other findings and that does lead to again as i say view of how you look at the evidence but if you take our position from the beginning that has been our position and that isn't the position that we still have that is consistent throughout that's our view of how blanchard works with respect to a few other points that  colleague made the context manager in the blue to say this question in the specification in no way suggests that the limited list is longer extensive or it has additional things it merely indicates that in fact there are a finite lists that might occur so in the context example says if you're in the calendar and story and you look at the context it might give you certain information about the person in there so like the contact information or if you're in the contacts of permission and you put the phone  beyond displaying the information in fact if you claim fourteen which they look at it says that the limited list right and then you can't scroll to reveal additional information that suggests that you're now off into a different world outside of the limited list that is your scrolling beyond it to reveal a different set of functionality or data or some other kind of list not that the limited list goes on and on and on all of the everything that talks about the limited list and what it's about is about displaying infor and south pacific these are the summary does not have to be presented with any within any kind of time agreed and that's about that's about graphically showing what it is that's around it so it doesn't have to have any graphic information to set it off for it to but that doesn't suggest that the limited list goes beyond what's on the display screen again claim i think sixteen is the strongest indicator talks about the program and it says that on  displayed on a screen the summary the menu is displayed on the screen the opticians summary is displayed on the screen and a application summary window displays the limited list of information everything is about displaying the information on the screen not that you would scroll beyond that and