and here the core of this happening is the dual download functionality this is the ability for a wireless device to request media content and then to have that content delivered to bo a wireless device in a personal computer in response to that one single request and this is the core issue here and the core error here is a claim destruction issue all to me we submit and it's the p t o s failure to that phrase that should be read as applying to all three of the last imitation to claim that it it qualifies and that everything that occurs after in response receiving their class must occur after that  receive a request and then send the content to two different devices without any additional requests without any additional requests and i think part of that is in is is innate in the making available element itself and that what you have shelf and then in the you later obviously after they're on the shelf for two things you send them to each thing but in their version the board's version putting it on the shelf is what has to be done in response to the request but maybe additional requests are needed for each of the items from that the shelf your version is no no more requests what how do we figure out why you are right that no more requests for what you have made available this made available sounds like maybe it's sended it asked well i think i think the first part of the answer that question is to look at assent the last two somehow those are written those refer back to the third limitation so what you i believe you just described your honor is just the general concept of making something available and then sending it in here the last two elements i think are more specific than that they're sending content that is made available in the third limitation so the last two limitations you are sending a first version of selectable content to a specific device and characteristic over just the general putting something on a shelf and then sending it at a later time and if you think just looking at the claim i mean looking at your third limitation in response to receiving a request is making the first version available making a second version available semi colon then there's the fourth limitation sending the first version semicolon then there's the for that limitation sending the second version sent period you know i guess you know i mean i would agree with you if you didn't have the semi colons and they were all all these different actions were clustered together in a single paragraph limitation then you're probably on to something that in response to receiving the request all of these various actions are happening in response to that request but when it's divided out like this through semi colons it does start to make it look like or at least it's not unreasonable to look at the claim and see the fourth and fifth limitations as being separate actions and we're supposed to be using the broadest reasonable interpretation that's so i guess i'm and that's what i'm struggling  in respect to the making available piece the pan talks about how the format of the download may match or conform to selected destination devices and then it goes on to talk about how a user ma three four and i think what's also quite important in this case isn't with respect to the specification language and i don't want to i don't mean to make the panel jump around but in the right of appeal notice the examiner looked at these elements it looked at this aspect of the specification and said that they appear to support the claim dimension in more specifically the dual download concept as we've argued it and that's at they don't disclose the dual download functionality and then later on in the examiner's answer at twenty two sixteen the examiner concludes the same perspective and zos that it does not appear to teach the additional st actually downloading two different versions of content into different devices so i don't think there should the should be a future that the references themselves don't teach this now off the board in the intervenor here have suggested that somehow despite the fact that none of these references teach this functionality that their combination would somehow render it obvious and i would submit that when the references don't explicitly or expressly teach it i don't know how there be anything else in the record evidence in this case that would teach or suggest one skill in the art the functionality well just so i can unpack this you know let's assume for the moment that boards claim construction is right on your dual download feature that ok that it doesn't require what you think what you're arguing then what would your argument be about the obviousness combination of either sending the selected file to those devices just talked about selecting the devices and if you look back at twenty eight eighty two it would would would your argument actually be any different if it said befor one and actually gives another example of sending it to more than one device it says you can send it to your own device and then it says starting at line forty nine you can send a friend link may also be provided allowing a user to send selective audio information allowing a second request for example  there's further questions you can ask your question about the three seventeen this is a question i realize we may have exhausted that issue but there's the same threshold argument you make in this case as you get in the earl about they basically haven't exhausted that  would it would get back together with the final decision by the board that's correct and then it would be part of an appeal here i believe so yes yet in this case apple settled and so there was no it was the case was dismissed without cause apple etc there is no final decision with respect to apple that they fail to meet their burden of proving the invalidity of any claim that's why they took that petition to terminate was was denied not the duel down the functionality so i would refer the panel back to column sixteen which is the one body mint that does discuss this and i think as a last point to point to note that this was decided in the reexamination and again this is at sixteen seventy and i'll just read from what the examiner said here and these are this is the examiner quoting  suggests that peter as the citizen should not stand i mean i don't know that it takes precedent but i think that the fact that issue was looked at by the examiner who looked at the whole record and had the most time with the patent and with the issues in this reexamination looked at it and decided that the claim should be read to have dual download functionality i think that that's relevant so that that that the p tab would review that you know vowing what standard of review do we apply to the cat's claim construction i think it's a novel and a proxy specially here where you have i think that primarily the issue is the intrinsic evidence and what the pa