what i'm trying to figure out is assuming that intrinsic evidence doesn't clarify and so now we're just left with trying to figure out what is the meaning of electronic package and th that looking at the term package one of steel in this art isn't necessarily confined in restricted to having a second level connection that uses finding that second level connection is required for this turn package it was just making an observation about that particular piece of extrinsic evidence but ultimately what it rested on was concluding that there was  extensive evidence authoritative dictionaries technical dictionaries that canceled against loading up the meaning of packaged have all these very particular eyes types of connections and so i way the keys was pitched to them was that all they had to resolve on a claim construction was whether the word packaging that is used in the claims necessarily requires that there be a second law connection using one of those two connection means to a p c b and so then the board said well after we consult all of the expense of evidence under the broadest reasonable interpretation we don't necessarily think the word packaging actually made a motion to say wait a second you put serious on the caption of this intraparty is reexamination proceeding and that is wrong and i challenge this i throw the gauntlet down and so therefore the board was never actually confronted with having to answer this question and and then after only after the board issued a decision and then only after the board issue reconsideration decision and then after you filed the notice of appeal did you then file a motion not a little bit to this court asking for something that you didn't actually ask a low and so i'm wondering whether now this is a wave situation in terms of whether you can now at this late drum sure raise these types of arguments that were never actually put to the test below by present them to the board in the right vehicle we did file an opposition to their desire to appear at the oral argument but that opposition was confined to the question of whether or not sirius should be allowed to argue at the oral argument it wasn't an actual formal challenge to whether they could be put on the caption and since they were put on the caption your side remained silent for the whole way through so i especially i believe we did  isn't necessarily the caption was changed and so therefore it was accepted and then that is where now if you're unhappy with that that's where you need to step in and say wait a second what happened here were proper party in the case well the problem was is that they filed their request to appear at the argument very very late untimely way and so the board concluded well this is not timely so the best will do is let them sit there in case we have questions i'm fascinated by lawyers believing that they're barred from filing anything and not having anything in the record formally objecting to that the mounting mechanism which is consistent across all these you know it eliminates one of the fun of the characteristics of what these things have it provides the support of release that license as absolutely critical in terms of