good morning your honor may please the court we're here on an appeal from two separate i p r board decisions involving claims of the single that the three four four pat the three four four patent claims relate to a system in method of controlling devices at a house by tracking the locations of the household members by using develop their mobile devices to provide the location information the claims accomplish this by determining the relative locations of each user with respect to the site and then comparing those locations and then based on the comparison deciding what action should be taken to control the device at the site it claims also require claims one and sixteen in particular taking into account individual preferences that each user might have as to how the device at the site would be altered such that the home can be conditioned appropriately to the user that's closest to the site and it was this combination that differed over the prior art in the prosecution history the combination of the comparison in the combination of the individual user preferences the board here committed legal air with respect of the p terms of comparison and profile as well as claims nine i'm sorry eleven and thirteen there's also insufficient evidence to support the board's findings as to other terms including proximity select like to turn first to the comparison issue the court or the board here committed legal or first that did determine the meaning of the term comparison have affected your playing step to both parties going constructions correct it determined that a comparison requires an examination of two or more items to establish similarities and dissimilarities in the claim tells us what those two or more items that are being compared or examined are still cation of the relative distances of both mobile devices to the site so you cobble that together in the b r i's says i need to take the location of each individual with respect to the site examine it and determine  require a stablish in similarities and dissimilarities in all instances we agree but it has to be able to establish similarities and dissimilarities in some instances it is that feature that's the difference that well first of all the amish she doesn't compare locations but when you're comparing locations you have to be able to determine where are they where are they with respect to one another namely as one closer to the site president is a pure focus is i understand dropped either similarities or does some dissimilarities is needed to consider both of them and i just want to understand concretely what sense to consider both when you're talking about location while it means when you're talking about location and i guess we're emphasizing the fact that yama sheet of the reference can't establish similarities and dissimilarities our point is the fact that they can't determine where user is in can't determine where one it is with respect to one another means that you can't compare their actual locations meet so when we talk about yama she then in the board says that that they have messages that have been his and that a different point is i think that's not what is necessary to me the comparison i understood you to me different argument about this claim construction now have have used similarities and di similarities in the institution i guess announcement of the claim construction or that later dropped one of them and i'm trying to understand what that means and if i will it yes there's two two prongs to the argument the first is that yamashita doesn't have the ability to compare to make a full comparison to be able to establish likes and dislikes namely are they are the users in the same location or are the users in different locations that similarities and dissimilarities namely the processor is looking at various points at the same time it's doing comparisons of where each user is with respect to the site and are they in the same place similarities or are they in different places dissimilarities if one thinks of it that way how does one not the absolute mirror image of the other so that there is no reason to talk about similarities and  similar or not but that goes to the second point which is because yamashita doesn't drink and it doesn't work we are not contending that ya mr that the claims require actual latitude or longitude information but there has to be sufficient information indicative of where a user is because the claims require location or location information there used needs to be sufficient information about the user's location transmitted to the processor which is  or transmitter the system which is the function or the structure that performs the function of the comparison and with that location information the processor can then determine the users in the same place or the users in a different place so they look at where they are in the focus of in the reason this is important or is the focus of the three four core patent specification as with respect to the two user embodiment is let's take a look at let's determine which is closer to the site and depending upon which user is closer to the site as an example it could be a user being further away from a site that's the schedule or the preferences that we're going to implement that can both individuals be transmitting a message to do something so that it determines whether both of those individuals are within three hundred meters right that the system doesn't your honor the location information where the user is there's rules that are embodied soley on the mobile devices so the example you gave where with when a user is within three hundred yards that's programmed on each individual mobile device and as their expert acknowledged and independents paragraph one hundred seventeen the mobile devices don't communicate with one another and the and their location information remains soley on the mobile device in his declaration he said the location this is dr selker and paragraph twenty four are to start paragraph two fourteen of his declaration which the board relied on he said location information was transmitted with the messages and that's what the board cited too as their basis for why that the i maci the thought that limitation of the claim but that declaration was given before his deposition in the case and his deposition he clarified is the term i'll use or are conceded that the terminal based on the satisfaction of the requirement to just read and the one terminal can send that one mobile device could send that message at one time it would sit resident in the control terminal intil the other mobile device at some other point in time sends its masses to look up table says we have a match take action but the system never knows never knows where each individual is to compare the location because all of that information remains soley on the mobile device the only thing that sent from the mobile device to the control terminal is a massive which now the message is based or can be based on location but it can also be based on other things and because of that because no information is sent that control terminal not only doesn't know what triggered the device the message it could have been distance it could have been time it could have been a variety of other things but the turm requirements and the passages that they send talk about the control requirements are being read resident on the mobile device in the user can set up those control requirements to whatever rick message requirements that you want and those are user's program diffuse program that within three hundred meters they would not get it the control terminal wouldn't receive it but the control but it might and if it is a distinction but the reason that that's important is because the claim requires there to be a comparison of location and then based on that comparison that takes some action and if the if the mobile terminal never on the side of the control terminal never knows where the users are how can it compare their location particularly when the messages are not sense at the same time there are spaces resident those messages just wait and satisfy a test and then some action is taken they're not looking at where the users are and so it would to me be inconsistent with the specification to say that we're looking only for a match when the users arguably would be in the same place when the entirety of the patent specification with respect to the mobile device somebody minutes focused on let's find out where when the users are in different places to be able to take unique action for the profiles of claim one or the proximity of selector of claim sex based on differentiation of the user's and in figure twelve rule be in this table shows us that the system does not turn off the air conditioning until both terminal and terminal b are going away or are in other words until they are both more than three hundred meters away from the house and so there we have an illustration of both similarities and differences if there is a if there is a difference in the status of terminal a in terminal b and in other words if one is has already gone away that one is still in the house the air conditioner remains on if they're both the same if we have a similarity and they both gone more than three hundred meters away from the house and the air conditioner turns off  that we're dealing here from the perspective of the system as a whole these are system claims that we're talking about right now and so it's not just about whether one processor would do this or one what one processor would know but we have to look at the whole receiver terminal understand anything about anything about location from the message it gets a i don't think the see in the form of whether the rules that are on the mobile devices say here's where you send a message whether any aspect of those rules are on the receiving device of the receiving device as i got this message i look at what the rules are that say here's why you're getting the message and it tells me something about location i agree that if the processor on the control terminal does not probably does not know precisely that interaction between both the the control terminal and the mobile devices but the search site said nothing actually happens that the control terminal doesn't know to do anything until both until the rules of them satisfied said i'm sorry but maybe maybe i can see if i can create example physiology to ever say that it's always or even sometimes a three hundred metre rule or  here i don't think there's that much detail in the i'm a she took but there is not that much detail in the three four four specification either and as we noted in our brief for instance there are many examples in the three four four specification where that the system is doing no more than what yamashita is doing is to a for instance there there is a scenario where the temperature isn't adjusted it until all users go more than house are configured based on the price of energy and in those situations the base unit doesn't know anything about the exact location of those mobile devices it doesn't know any meters right and that's absolutely true and the in the board pointed out that you know there is no whether it's within three hundred meters or nah right i mean there's there is nothing there's nothing deficient about the fact anything about location but it doesn't get the message if it's not within three hundred meters i agree with that but claim one as an example requires that the processor is the thing that fork performs the comparison and what the processor compares is the location of each device relative to the site in the processor that they claim exists and yamashita that performs this but uncle comparison is on the control terminal if the control terminal never receives where each user is relative to the site the processor can't compare that information which is why is your council say dr sulker says well the system knows where everyone is what does he mean and we've sort of this in our brief he means the people because the mobile devices which have the location information don't communicate with one another and the mobile devices which have the location information don't send that to the control terminal so as acknowledged the control terminal never knows where who's where never knows which user is closer to the site in the if you can't determine which users closer to the site you don't know where they are so while they receive a message that can be indicative of a person crossing a geo fence of three hundred meters as your honor indicated also there are other control requirements in there with reference to figure ten of y column sixteen talks about it can be linear distance it can be time there can be a variety of other things that trigger the messages from the mobile devices to the control terminal at the control terminal has no insight as to why it's receiving a it's simply a simple look up table that says i have a message that says this i have a message that says this and that's in the multiple mobile terminal for the single terminal it just looks for one and it has no idea where the other user is but for the two of that receives ball it only it only waits for two matching messages and has no idea where they are it has no idea what triggered the messages it just takes action and that simply can't be the comparison set forth in the flame because the specification of this is an unreasonable application of the r i this a can be met by a simple matching particularly a bit when in view of the fact that comparison