examiner simply incorporated by reference so there's no indication on the record that it was considered or value it is i thought your brief did a good job you had an interesting to the buffer in terms of different application programs trying to access kind of exam offer and and so and so i guess in the p t o s view is that behaves like a clock in the sense that it it locks out one of the application programs from accessing kind of buffer and in the p t o s view it would be obvious to use such a gate gating function the down function in order to use it the process documents this counter and then decides if there there was space for him to be working on this if so it just continues to process sleep the device is an operable it doesn't work so you would never use it some up for in case there's only one process you just don't do it there's no advantage problems very difficult thing to you but the only thing in the summer for is to moderate contention for a shared resource perl doesn't have that problem i i saw the patent board in the rehearing decision apparently try to morph the rationale for the combination by suggesting well what if we modified burl so that there were multiple  sources trying to access the ram and then if we had such a situation then yes we would want to have some type of some a for locking system creating system well first time sort of runs contrary to  iraq which you can't modify the reference nations operate differently changing a single process system into multitasking operating system system has a very difficult problem and if you were successfully hand but i was i did have a question about column ten buffers and then out to conserve power and then there's a sentence that the operation is in sharp contrast to a typical buffering operation in which a buffer is allocated into two portions with only one half of the buffer space available for read write operations while the other half of the buffer space is locked for data transfer operations to the code and in my right to re sentence as stating that it was already known in the art to have two buffer areas and lock one of the buffer areas while there's content in there that's going to be accessed by the and then the other buffer area to be unlocked yes ok so when we look at your claims as i understand it this sentence basically acknowledges that everything in the claim was already old except for the fact that your claimed instead of talking about to buffer lockable buffer areas the claim says more than at more than two right and they're all independent lot of th so the obvious next question then boils down to whether the obvious to have more than to lock up a buffer areas when we already know in the art that you could do it with two lockable buffer areas yes again by by having a whole bunch of smaller buffers there's several of them were mentioned here but one by having very small buffers and only locking one you have a lot more ram that you can read on the on the characteristics of the kodak and everything else you can divide the buffers into appropriate sizes that allow you to maximize the amount of time that this has turned out so it's not burrell some portion of the memory is protected from being overwritten so therefore there is some logic that locks that effectively locks those sections o time so that it is designed to replenish adds new data to the ram just in time as the prior packet of data in the ram is getting played out by the kodak so it's not a question of trying to lock up the ram to avoid accidental overwriting of the data you still want need it's more a question of figuring out the timing so that the new the new cache of data will get there just in time that's the way i understood well that's definitely one of the advantages to him around and just so i understand the combination for to system which already includes and still had to play control logic which one is it i think it can be either going to be popular for out but just which one is it so i think ok but if you do that why doesn't that entirely defeat the purpose of burrell which is to have this play control logic so that the system will know when is the right time to pump in more feed into the the timing of the replenishing of the data there also has to be some segmentation where certain period certain parts of that data are not overridden to allow for example but i guess whining why isn't that one in the same in the sense that the timing is all about trying to figure out when the data that's in the rand has been exhausted and now you're you're going to put in the new data by using that timing sequence you're necessarily not overwriting data because you're trying to figure out when that data is been exhausted ok well i think once you've figured out that it's been exhausted you could you could still have the system over write that data but what burrell teach is that in order to provide somebody the ability to rewind then you want to say that you do not want to overwri a certain period a certain portion of that data now it doesn't tell you how it does that it just says that the data is not overwritten so one of ordinary skill in the art to look at that and see that there are many different ways of doing that and so ram buffer kind if i see one ram and earl i see one ram so i guess i don't see either of them talking about the idea of let's see within the ram you've got to play state information you've got playlist information you've got table contents information and then you also have the audio data each one of those little boxes the segmented part of the ram so relatives contemplate and teach ram buffers that are separate and that are treated separately and then layered on top of this some portion of that audio data and block one ninety two and figure two c is being prevented from being overridden when the threshold level is being met to allow the rewind capability the first few lines or areas of the ram those are you know there's you don't need to sometimes lock them sometimes unlock them right there those are just areas where you're not going to be pumping in new compressed data well that's not true because that as you change as you get more information more songs and they're going to change the table contents relation that are in there so that those things are being changed as as you download additional data and get new songs and new audio files introduced into the ram you're also going to be introducing the table content information about them that's wishes to reverse direction of play so you're saying in perl for the combination you would yank that piece out of perl and then you would put in the summer for no we're capability of connacht and using it that as play control logic which can prevent the overwriting of that section of audio data to allow the rewind and then to the second question about where the brand is segmented and kind of the shared in kind of what kind of does teach it is that the memory buffer that's used in the summer for mechanism could because they didn't actually say to i don't think that you would be relying on in this case the elements in the prior art that or inflame one and then goes on and talks about the motivation combined with a motivation to combine does incorporate the reasons that were stated in the requests for examination as far as you say going to memory buffer as well that's just table showing data that has nothing to do with locking around or continuous feeding of data from the desk to the other thing that i want to mention about her enough is it could have explicitly states around the patent application that it is a hardware resource controller designed to run on on your invitation that this is the first time it's been a litigator i want to just point out that i thought that i didn't find some of the rhetoric in your reply preferred helpful and i would recommend that you not write that way particularly in this quarter i'll give you an example of something about how if we affirm then the p t o might as rely on well rely on