that that the fourth factual finding to that effect is erroneous clearly erroneous well it is still erroneous in that regard but analytically what they do ended up doing is they looked at  network that dr knox the patent owner created that is not so much to know device and so when we look for any that's in your brief if you heard we did that you only argued that to the extent that you went outside a certain radius that that it wouldn't allow operation but you didn't say it would never operate we it said throughout all of the briefing and the reason i'm arguing it this way right here is simply so that you can look at the issue from a sort of a different angle than what dr knox had presented throughout our briefing ages nine and ten of the blue brief sixteen twenty four one hundred twenty twenty one twenty two all of those pages discuss the operation of months to know and they all say that the forty eight volt supply is only available at the n t one for detection the second that forty eight will the end of those two wires the end of the do signal read the second they touch a detection current flows and immediately monsoonal switches to the power to operate the devices but that issue that we have to confront on appeal and that you have to contend with i think is driven in large part by the claim construction for low level current which is a construction i don't believe you're disputing  the whole so that's what forcing the issue where we have to create this kind of hypothetical world because obviously that forty eight both isn't actually being used and not the power to d t e but we're now left in this hypothetical world where we have to ask ourselves whether or not forty eight volts is enough to power those devices those remote devices well i think that's not exactly the correct way to look at this because we did not dispute the claim construction claim construction as a current insufficient to operate a device we think that complies exactly with what monsoonal says you need the higher power to operate the device the issue is the construction of the claim even really address that question right dr zimmerman said was an exact very direct question with respect to will the forty eight volts power or does it say expressly in those words whether forty eight volts will operate a d t e which is just not really the access devices we identified he said the words aren't there he simply said that it is implied that that's the case the reason is in  what happened here is the board really got twisted around the axle of their own claim construction use which use the words sufficient to operate our current sufficient to operate where is much to know speaks in terms of power or voltage to operate a skilled artisan understands those are directly related to the law of nature ohms law much to no talk about you use the high power to operate see that for the appeal simply because the words are not literally there however if i tell you a light switch is on if i told you it's off also mean or not off and that's the situation so then you have a problem so you've got an expert d who does it first declaration or he doesn't really even analyze mr know and any kind of detail does a second declaration that the board says it's only considering for a very limited purpose right and then you have dr zimmerman admitting exactly how it operates and that's why i made the point up front that months to no cannot allow that forty eight volts to operate the access device and if they can't do it it is insufficient to do it by definition no work one argued that the forty eight votes are available and i'll quote to be used by the access device unquote that's eight to six six five they're known or plymouth response so they work ones arguing that the only serving protection the only again you've got a problem in that if you're arguing inherently you have to have evidence with respect and here you have an expert that says well it's not really but i think it's kind of implied and then he says well it doesn't like talk through it all we've you're asking us to find it at the board clearly erred or didn't have substantial evidence to support its factual conclusion and yet you can't point us to any evidence in the record other than what you want us to imply from math to know i don't know how you can you can say that's enough when you have dr zimmerman's second declaration which did not say it was considering no board specifically said it did consider for the very limited purpose of looking at the rebuttal of but not for purposes of everything that he presented for the first time the board said it was not going to opportunity that the petitioners had to respond to the claim construction issue this is just the nature of an ip are proceeding was in the patent the in the petitioners reply to dr knox into cements the not declaration but wait you know when you don't dispute the claim construction when you say we're not or came up with it on its own it was pretty obvious i'm construction right we don't you had to anticipate that there was going to the original disclosure in the design of the circuit and that's what dr zimmerman said the forty eight volts is removed hence it's a low level current it's not going to operate it and use those words but that's exactly what the  it's kind of i don't know really readjusting the arguments is that fair to say because i'm a little confused based on what i'm hearing now versus everything that i've read before i'm simply trying to have you look at what my soon to disclose was so that you could see it can't operate but in the brief we argued is that the board made analytical and legal errors because they didn't even use their claim construction when they applied it too much to know the board was asking the wrong question when they were using their own claim construction they asked the question is any i s d n device could it possibly operate off of forty eight volts regardless of what the actual network is the correct inquiry for this claim should have been is there one device that receives current in sufficient to operate claim six which is the issue the claim here is a bit of an odd claim you know it starts with the first step that supposed to be a method but the first step does build a network that puts a data access device here puts a data note here and puts one cable between it that's it then the method operates on that network and it says deliver a current to that one fifty foot radius in which he had pre ordained some devices he could come up with would operate and they said well we can find one device there that does operate that's the wrong legal question the question should have been is there a device that can't operate and if they the only way they could come to a conclusion of not know anticipation based on looking at what dr knot it is they had to add a limitation into the clay and had to be deliver a low level but under the prior art from it's who know what happened was when the well let me ask it differently you know why isn't it that that first take away that forty eight or isn't enough to actually power the remote device the forty volts was selected because it would provide sufficient power for the g p s based on where the detainees are located in that sooner which i didn't say that again that the forty eight  switch i believe that number eight closes then you have the detection circuit telling you that you know you now you're getting the feedback to go ahead and trigger a hundred twenty volt to go across the subscriber be at a level that would be too low lit it could not operate the device our pattern is all about sending currents to devices some of which may be able to accept power some of which can't we have to be able to detect which ones can and which ones can't missy who has no concern with that every device attached to with who knows i s d n will be something that can accept power so much seems only concern is to make certain that it's going to be powering if there's a low level current to start the power and if local supply goes out and while a local supply isn't used to make certain that the voltage levels not too high because if it did say that you're at a claim about sensing work which level in response to the little current that is that invention that claim is directed to sending a low level current all the way out to the remote access device and sensing a voltage level back to the remote access device in general terms that's right now so that low level current isn't due thing a response from the remote access device that's right and that's and that's you know it doesn't do that it can't do that the switch is part references that were cited to the to the board in this particular proceedings that that the board could have considered for purposes of an obvious no yes didn't acknowledge that was a reference that provided really none of the elements except a the tissues are limited to the evidence they provided with their petition in order to make other from official without any evidence all they could do is hope to make out to keep of express disclosure as they've got the text admits to no they've got no other second declaration he's got very statements one of which you can infer the sorts of arguments they want to make all those arguments fail again for the reasons that we explain in our brief no one in japan which is where this reference is from is no represent that already so that would be so low that it would be good enough for the with detection circuits but it wouldn't be good enough power that allowed access because your honor the problem we're dealing with here is a circumstance where you've got an ether net cable to provide power to those devices before we did but we still got all of our legacy devices that are attached that are going to be attached in the future before we apply power we have to determine is this a device that looks up power in that circumstance  can actually send power is concerned with making certain that when look when the local power cuts off my question was about not within about all these other prior reference and it wouldn't be obviously meant to know why would you want to send a low power you want to  going to power at the local goes out and there's a problem with the one twenty kick in for a period of time you want that forty eight volts driving you're d t e that's the whole point of it wonder what you mean that the whole point of it where does it say that much single paragraph six and object of the present reading the last sentence and object of the president mentioned is to supply a prescribed power level while maintaining staff to shape the by applying a low voltage during local power supply the local power supply forty moves is still supposed to be able to power it's also to be disposed to do it safely also because it's a constant voltage supply that's the difference if you're creating the forty eight vo to v two that's coming out of the mains out supply unit at the local power supply no your honor i'm in quezon as one will be sufficient to provide the prescribed power level you want to supply the prescribed power level while maintaining safety by applying find sufficient to do it if you can now to actually do it for five minutes you would need to apply for five minutes you play to protect the second it would power part of the second whatever period of time it's in effect it's going to power address the first point judge chen raised dr knox never talked about any time lapse in the switchboard as much to know as i think you can understand this which is essentially instantaneous and it says in paragraph i believe it's fifty six is an immediate switch so that forty volts as i've said is never available to operate let's go to the legal and analytical errors the board did made the only way when you look at the diagram that we show here that they could to no the devices out here would only get for an insufficient opera but they only have to add that limitation if we agree with you that you know assumes that it's that it's working under that and the standards which in japan are not applicable well you know dr knox himself had did it needed that you know there'd be non operational devices outside of his radius numbers he calculated that radius not in the test to see whether devices inside that would be optimal so that he used very conservative estimates and things like that but to illustrate the point that there are many many many example the bottom is where this particular voltage forty eight volts would be able to power the detainee's on the end in with his conservative estimates as he say which were all disputed and the board did not address that nor did they actually make any  they're supposed to do right they need to look at what dr zimmerman said which is also for example dr knox uses the bird reference book this is the book she picked as the i s d n network and he takes one parameter out of it and uses other references for think as one skilled nurse would look at the state there's no way to acknowledge why why is using a device that didn't exist at the time of month to know an appropriate device to consider it came onto the market eleven years later  they didn't they there's no reasoning as to why that would be good the perhaps and i mean the the other way that the board may have limited the construction of course is they could say that there were many access devices and they all had to receive low level current if that was the case there are many devices in a network they all have to receive low level current then in this situation if we accept what dr knox said that there be some operational ones then again there could be there would be no anticipation but again the board that's not the claiming to claim language simply says deliver a low level current to one access device the fact of the matter is i monsoonal built his network here in this courtroom dr knox could never get an access device to operate off of the forty eight volts and the other fact is if your time is