majority's construction effectively reads out the words local area network especially the network part of that term at the time of the invention of the five hundred and fifty five patent a local area network or a lan for short was a well known term of art in this field as was a wireless lan or a w lan as the specification teaches a skilled artisan would have understood a plan to mean a network that interconnect devices and allows them to communicate with one another on the lan as the dissenting judge judge stevens at the  appendix page fifty six dollars a defining characteristic of a network is the ability for devices to communicate with each other within the network that essential requirement is absent from the  which makes it incorrect now with the correct construction of wireless local area network transceiver the p tab majority's decision should be reversed the hone styling reference on which the piece have majority relied does not disclose a w land transceiver because it does not disclose the creation of a w lan on which devices can communicate with each other without having to send signals into the larger network we therefore respectfully request that this court reverse the p t s majority's decision turning st to claim construction the paper have majority construe the term w transceiver to mean quote a transceiver that transmits and receives wireless signals and to find the coverage area that is relatively small or geographically limited this is judge still  component which is that it provides the ability for devices on the w lan to communicate with each other on the network that now i have read so this is judge sol again i've read the claim language eight to eleven teaches that an essential component of a local area network is the interconnection that i mentioned and i'll just quote the language of the specification that says quote in some such systems the access points are coupled to a conventional local area network also used to interconnect the processing stations of an office computer system so what about the fact that it so much i mean that doesn't seem to be can be coupled to a conventional local area network also used to interconnect so again there in the background is teaching that the when it comes to a local area network the interconnection i specification teaches numerous times that those connections are wireless local area network lan connections just for example that column eight lines forty four to forty seven and column nine fifty three to fifty five and then the specification also teaches that the invention provides quote w in service to the mobile devices in the coverage area and that is taught at collingwood eleven lines forty one  rescue one more time i just want to ask them looking at the claim language referring to in the and also that in the specification it really seems to talk about the wireless local area network transceiver describes the st transceiver being in communication with treasury of a station which creates a larger network and then it describes the smaller w land transceiver and it's also illustrated at figures five dollars and six dollars of the patents which shows the two kinds of coverage the areas which are overlapping so the invention of the patent is focused at coupling those two kinds of networks and allowing service as i was mentioning your honor there are the teaching in the in the background that a basic component of a local area network is who interconnect devices on the network and about the evidence that was in the record before that people have about what that term of are meant to a person of skill because on that question the evidence is unanimous all of the evidence before the people have about w land was understood to mean at the time of the invention in the case that it must have as an essential component the ability to connect devices on the network to each computer dictionary defined the land as a group of computers and other devices dispersed over a relatively limited area and connected by a communications link that enables any device to interact with any other on the  network i think it's notable your honor that neither unified nor the p have cited a single dictionary a technical dictionary definition to the contrary so let's go back forms connections with a plurality of mobile devices in the coverage area so i think that when you have a proper understanding of the term w lan and again the specifications teach that is that the transceiver forms again your honor it's inherent in the words wireless local area network transceiver especially wireless local area network the ability for the devices on the local area network to communicate with one another is what makes it a wireless local area network and again as i've been discussing that is taught in the specification in the background that interconnection is an essential component of a local area network and what you're saying that in fact an essential feature of a w w land transceiver is does not include interconnecting the mobile stations with the majority here how what do you think is the standard of review that applies to that for us i think it substantial evidence do you agree i did your honor th nova review if the boat to the question of whether the board findings are consistent with the specification and the claim and on that question as i've been discussing we think the specification teaches that  consistent with supreme court precedent yes your honor i agree that as with strings of evidence it's a substantial evidence standard overview but again we think the board failed at the st step because it's inconsistent with the claims in the specification but the board also the board's reasoning also fails at the nd step because under a substantial evidence review you have to look at as at the evidence and as a describing one hundred percent all of the evidence in the record about what the term would have meant in the case that connectivity amongst the devices on the network was an essential require component i would just note that the board's reasoning is based on an incorrect analysis of us and large part of a straw man argument which was that the board seemed to be understanding us to argue that that to be complete you're such and the board was correct that that was not understood to be an essential part of a lan or at the lan at the time of the event of the invention but that is not what we were arguing and again the piece have dissenting judge understood what our position was which was that we were arguing that the central component of atlanta right that you land was was that the devices be able to communicate with one another on the network without having to go out into the wider network and then also i believe that he cited some language in column twelve about how widely and services provided a fixed wireless access communication system and i just wanted to have your thoughts on the strength of those discussions yes i think your honor both of the packages she asked point of the court this morning do not require that the wireless local area network transceiver interconnected vices or that there is an interconnection between devices but it says absolutely nothing about whether or not those devices must communicate out the communication leading the network which is the critical aspect of d f s proposed construction and  construction was fully consistent with that dictionary definition it makes no mention of communication work being direct over quien that communication occurred without using the network in addition than supported by substantial evidence term is wireless local area network transceiver and of course as the court knows the proper claim construction must give effect to every word in that term at most the pete has construction gave effect to the word transceiver into the word wireless local area in its description of a coverage area that is relatively small or geographically limited but the fatal flaw with the  construction is that it does not give meaning to the word network as a pita as authentic splaying the basic function of any network is to connect devices on the network and allow them to communicate with one another but that concept of a network is completely absent from the p tab majority's construction therefore because the construction fails to give effect to every word in the term and also with contrary to the teachings in the specification that i discussed during my argument the construction is incorrect and should be rejected by this court the correct construction is the one that was offered by adopted by the lan now turning to judge newman's question about how this court should read the home steam reference using the correct claim construction that we are advocating and which the dissenting judge adopted posting and if the court adopts the correct construction which is which it should the proper result is to reverse the p tab because there really is no dispute that the homesteading reference does not teach the creation of a separate wireless local area network that allows devices on the network to communicate with one another wireless local area network transceiver again because hosting simply does not describe the creation of a separate layer of network the smaller wireless local area network instead as we explained in our brief and as failed to explain why a person of skill would have been motivated to fundamentally alter home steen to create the nd layer of network that is required by a correct construction of the term w m transceiver mr taylor this is judge cole i had one last quick question which is that i did not see where the board made any alternatives fact finding a new york post construction that you're advocating before us today do you agree