of the first is that the board was not permitted to do so under s a s versus young through the supreme court's decision because there was no such ground in the petition and the grounds that are in that it is the petition or view that o'brien standing and well there is never a standalone o'bryant ground so the first that contention we have is that the board was not even permitted to make any obviousness up and if there was a request for institution based on brian along o'brien or that's sufficient right well then we would run into another problem which is that the board's institution decision never actually instituted based on a variety that there was a you know at every level that you look at  we do have a motivation to combine problem although they didn't characterize it that way but let's walk away from a brian with nelson and let's focus on a crime alone because we think that gets us there and the boy did take them up on that engaged on that after all hearing and certainly discussed it in the final written decision but our contention is that they didn't have the ability to render a completion of obviousness on that basis in light of what was that issue in the proceeding and they also never actually formally did that now it's all those are the those are two arguments one that the petition didn't argue o'brien standing alone and two that they didn't institute based on a bridle those are the reasons why the board was not able and empower conclude obviousness based on a vine alone however let's assume for a moment that they did do that and that they were able to do that just argue and then we run into a second issue which is that claims fourteen to seventeen and twenty mean certainly this clickable aspect is the only thing that's necessary for those other claims that comes from welsh right that i'm sorry what was a clickable aspect is the only thing that needs to come from they're trying to take out of while she has the idea of taking the teachings of a certain data compression method and implementing them in software and within an apparatus now so so so it's putting it into software correct ok so to proceed from there though i you know the mange here argument i had to make my procedural points for you but the heart of this argument with respect of riding alone comes down to the claim construction issue right because the meaning of leaving the dictionary which is the key limitation that was in dispute and this proceeding was contested by both parties and both parties deposition a second deposition spent two or three hours only arguing about the meaning of mentioning the dictionary we changed to the world hearing we disputed the point it was a central point of contention in the final written decision they s that is the focus of the parties dispute and yet they never construed maintaining the dictionary and nonetheless found that o'brien teaches maintaining that the what's the difference between what you are describing as a missing claim construction and what the board said i took at the heart of this is the board said of brian clearly teaches the same thing as is described in claim for and we read claim for to  be a identification of one way of doing maintaining one claimed one and you point out your brief here that you can actually legitimately get that out of the word comprising alone because comprising alone often means and another thing not his specific example but if you look at column three lines thirty one to thirty five that says i think in terms or close to be in terms exactly the same explicit that the set of actions described in claim four is not just an additional thing but a form of maintaining right so i think column three that i just pulled up and looked at  not in claim four but it tells you that a thing added in claim four is not just an another thing the way comprising sometimes is but it's actually an identification of a particular let's call it  the maintaining language of claim one which is exactly what the board concluded claim one maintaining covers and whether it's covered or means i'm not sure that makes any difference right so so this is  issue when it comes to o'brien and whether it meets the claimant patients it goes to this notion of what does maintaining the dictionary mean and the fourth as you describe sort of sat well effectively said i think the fair reading of the board's decision this is say means that i understand your point judge and our our response to that is that is an incorrect interpretation of me to missionary there is something more that me to audition requires and the reason is because we describe this in the brief and we certainly presentable blow the heart of the invention of the it well but the problem and solution that is at its core is not addressed and compassed by that language of claim for interpret it that if one were to read the pete habs decision as effectively construing maintaining the dictionary with what it did in its analysis of the plan for that would be incorrect that that would be an incorrect construction of the instance that's particularly applicable because simply saying need to need a dictionary means only once and call in three lines thirty one to thirty four or thirty five or what is what comes after complacent playing for would be missing the heart of the invention or the heart of the invention of this pattern is solving the problem of what do you know how do you strike the balance between compression speed and and compression ratio and to do that you have to make a choice of at what point is  for compression purposes too big at what point does it have too much and i think the fortune relate to this in sort of its ordinary experience in dealing with the likes of fine it's great to have a big dictionary but then you have to spend more time going through it and so there's a trade off pattern and that's called in the arc in multiple dictionary structure right our approach in that it will come out in this what's described as a single dictionary structure which is why they look to nelson in the first place because they're looking for single dictionary structures a single dictionary so every new dictionary starts with some basic elements that are part of the lexicon of the dictionary but beyond that when you start a new dictionary then you start with nothing and you're just discarding some of the data that was in the if you look again at the language that judge tranter was pointing to and column three it says and want to ask for to the invention the dictionaries demand the cli maintained by doing a certain thing which happens to be the thing that's independent  and then it says and yet another aspect of the president mention the dictionaries mr mishra lies during the coding process if the number of code words in the dictionary exceeds a pre determined threshold so i mean i understand what you're describing the  disclose but i'm not sure that you know this staff of resetting the dictionary fozzy rippin maintain it so that so for the sake of formality i do need to make the point that i believe this is a conversation that should argument if you could point to me to the language in the specification that says that figure to be show respect maintaining a dictionary or something to that effect and it starts by saying that for a new stream a new entry is made and then be determined quote the determination is that made as to whether the addition of the new entry would exceed the predefined maximum number of entries for the dictionary step to seventeen if the addition of the new entry would not result in exceeding this threshold negative determination step two seventeen the new entry will be added to the end of the dictionary step to eighteen i the entry will be indexed with  now to figures to read to be a flow guy graham illustrates a method for compressing data according to one aspect of the present invention it doesn't say anything like figure to be shows maintaining and the maintaining the dictionary you know instead where the pattern tells us tells the reader one where maintaining a dictionary is it's with respect to something that doesn't include resetting the dictionary so and this is an important point and this is one that we claimed for claim for has that maintaining the dictionary comprises the step of your adding this extra word to the dictionary and i think the board's point is whatever maintaining the dictionary is it's at was that it is the step in claim for and o'brien teaches claim for those words about having the string added to the dictionary and looking at the  code only think that it's there for the construes maintaining a dictionary is that dynamically maintaining and updating by including this language for and then claim five which depends from claim for has this additional step that you initially initiated if the dictionary becomes full so i think the entire intrinsic record really shows that the first step whatever maintaining  dictionary is is you're having it around essentially that the implicit construction that was in the petition that you created you populate it with you didn't use that data structure while you searching the dictionary the step of claim one is you're going to search the dictionary and then you're going to output the code so you have to have the dictionary around for you to do that so you've maintained that claim for gives you that additional step where you're going to add new clues new code words resetting a dictionary words full which is hard then to read into claim one it's true it could be a further refinement of that but there's nothing in the specification that has set forth maintaining a dictionary to include the limitations that real time wants to read into it and really i think that's another point is claimed twenty seven is a method of decompressing it also has the step of maintaining a dictionary but there is no process during maintaining a dictionary where the dictionary is getting full so you also have that claim limitation in a method where the dictionary is never going to get full so i think the board though they didn't expressly construe the maintain th is the necessary definition of all the compression that you have a dictionary and that you look up whether that would be what came to us and that dictionary and if it's not then you added that that's just dictionary to russian so if maintaining the dictionary just means having a dictionary then it strips away all meaning from the word maintaining a special meaning in the patent and it takes away the notion that the patent came up with any inventive concept around meeting the dictionary which is inconsistent with the teachings of the specification the specification would you say in response to the argument of the first argument about claim five in the second one about claim twenty seven twenty seven i understand as he talks about maintaining a dictionary with decompression where there is no edition going on at all and claim five explicitly says re initialize that the thing gets too big and that won't be that therefore can't be a necessary part of maintaining a claim one and in fact claim five survives because it wasn't