instead rejected purported good recipes arguments but hadn't and rejected them intertwined with that was the patent he had received to a verbal district court claim constructions along the lines of what question that this court said that one of the key issues was whether or not the the counter could control the  through some other component and this was the issue that this court called the critical issue whether in light of the specification and the surrounding claim language requires the counter itself and not the counter and a memory functioning together to drive the digital analog converter and this court couldn't because the board's opinion provides us with internet and it out with predicate on which to evaluate its decision to reject claim one the court vacated and remand it on that exact issue the board actually quoted that portion of the for its remit instruction and said quote this issue was addressed in detail in the decision meeting their prior decision and it just simply repeated verbatim quote it block quoting what had already said on that question and didn't add anything new at all to the announces did not address this  referring to so this is in in the appendix at page ten where the board has a heading does claim one preclude the counter in memory function together and that that is and they quote from the federal circuit prior opinion right below that had a and very first sentence after the quote reads this issue was addressed in detail in the decision and then it just block quotes from the prior decisions there after the that's not correct you just read that decision and it makes no finding that supports the board's decision and in fact in the second decision at eight forty three fed third thirteen twenty nine this court finds exactly the opposite that the the construction and in fact that that as a matter of fact the prior art having a rom in between decouples the counter from the jack and it's your question more the issue of whether the court whether the patent office grappled with the question of intervening components which is one of the issues that you impressiveness are intertwined here regardless of the standards of political and i mean you know preponderance of persons be or whatever you would think that if two other adjudicators have reached the opposite conclusion of you that any good judge would want to consider those regardless of what the standard is now the answer might be my standard is not the same as your standard and as a result while i see you've reached this conclusion my conclusion is different because  and they didn't do that but certainly i did not interpret our original remained order and i'm curious if you did to require the board to apply the standard that the district court adopted because they seem to suggest  result was consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation standard the office did not do that in fact in that remained decision they don't cite to or quote at all the district where it's claimed construction based on what we see we don't know whether or not the the board actually even read the do supports analysis now the director quotes it in in the read brief but the poor did not the board basically said one we think such an analysis is unwarranted too they said we don't know how we would do such an analysis and then third they said well but in all that aside the difference construction is narrower so you know fait accompli it must not be the broadest reasonable interpretation which we think begs the question the question of course the district court's construction was never were no the question was whether the board's construction was on recently brought i don't know if we have cases that say this but it seems to me to be honest with you that that the space between the construction in the broadest reasonable construction is probably a pretty narrow little window or a at and so not certainly it can't possibly be the case that every appropriate construction found this a matter of law that there exists broader constructions which every civil right sometimes they were made and sometimes there may not so why is this construction unreasonable tell me what a reasonable that stepaside mail from the failure to entertain are making money and order as that was optional and instead go to why is this an unreasonable construction because we do have a much more detailed opinion on this how we did before the definition of couple is there any reason to think the memory in the prior are substantially changes the voltage of current whatever it is it's passing between the converter and what are we setting it to for one of the two element was from one of the other yes it in fact they're rich and it's because the the whole purpose of having a memory is to be able to generate control signals that don't look anything like the address that you go to the memory to get the data from otherwise you would need a memory in the circuit but the point of the prior art memory was to provide randomized variation and so the output si actually bears no resemblance in a controlled way and in fact it's not the same voltage or the same current i mean the digital i mean sure the memory generates at its output a completely new set of digital signals that are different from the signals that come into it's input and in fact it was described when the experts as as i can i turn you just for a minute which i think this is king along the lines of what you're saying right now which to give a little bit point more pointed next to a  claim wind says that the counter crosses the digital analog converter to adjust the control input and to vary the switching frequency so it is i think what i'm hearing you say if i understand it in the hear you saying yes that's correct because you didn't elaborate again at circumstance the counter the data coming from the count of the control coming from the counter does not cause the frequency to change which causes the frequency to change is the data stored  wrong that is then outputs of the the egg and that data is a randomized it causes that the frequency to hop around in a pseudo random matter and that was important to the prior art and so in that instance the memory the data stored in the memory that's causing the frequency change not the camera is your argument then that there was language coupled to the counter should be interpreted in light of that surrounding language to provide something mor coupling in this claim is for the purposes of control and then it went to the specification and found consistently in the specification that it taught that the counter is what was causing the frequency variation it said pitch current for control signals pass from one to the other and so there there's a number of different embodiments and that construction actually goes beyond that and will encompass other kinds of connection th is disclosed and that's why the the report went on and say we don't mean to say that this requires a direct connection but in fact intervene in compliance roquet so long as they don't break the control relationship i is the court i need to start is not too happy with what the board here but if i could i just want to take one step back and try to explain why we're in this extremely awkward position in this very unusual case i think there was a series of five events that sort of led us into this very odd procedural position the first is that the original examiner did not do a very rigorous examination and issued the client after single office action in fact never ever rejected claim one the second is the fair trial did not request went on this detour to the district court in one forty five action and it was until tell us that we ended up coming back and being transferred to this court and then the fourth is that the district court when it actually did construe we find and if we we can look to the district single sentence and that not a very not at all any kind of thorough construction and fair trial never challenge to its construction and then as a consequence this court has so in that in the in the mean time actually come to two different issue two opinions based on that on challenge construction and finally when this court something or suspicion back because of that had misrepresented power integrations argument hose very standard that should be applied that is true it's just however if the if closer come out in a different way it could have affected what the board did independent of what this court ordered but let me just get to what i think the court what the the boerma struggling with and why it responded the way it did i think that it felt that it was in a very awkward position here because as i said if you look to the district rescission there is a single sentence where basically says that we find based on the specification that this is the correct construction and it cites only to the cl the two instances where the term appears on the coin and i think recently the board felt very in an awkward position to try to second guess what the district court why i had gotten to that construction without somehow casting a dispersion on the construction or suggesting that it was trying to i feel like critics are really projecting a lot of analysis into what possibly motivated the district court to tell us that our remit order  was unwarranted and they were going to comply with it but i don't see any of what you are saying in the board opinion is that you just said that if the it's at the district court's opinion was based on a single sentence of analysis and we disagree with it at least under the b r i c ender well i don't understand why they they couldn't have just done that if that if if what you're saying is true would have been a much friendlier little opinion than the one we've got i think that's true when i and beatles find but now if i could turn to the merits because i think what the board did here was completely appropriate and consistent with what peter does every day it's spent that's been charged with trying to assess whether or not the original prosecutor the original therefore that because the the district courts contract was narrower it was not broad was reasonable but the reason it got to where it was and this is unusual in the sense that we have a term that is not in the claim that is not defined the speci limit how the term coupled is interpreted in other words couple could have a variety of meanings even if that functional definite functional terminology is met and in fact in the specification yes we have example one where there is actually a direct connection between the counter and the d day converter but they're looking for something more than that but not too much more than that i mean that's just the whole problem here it's like we're trying to rip pulling out of that they're pulling this definition of a thinner it's not required or mandated by the specification and then there's they're trying to use it as a subsequent panel for the board recognized to distinguish between certain intervening components but not others so i think th inverters or scaling circuits would be ok but memory is not and when you look to the specification a fair reading the specifications are simply nothing there that draws a line between certain intervening components and not others what we have is a single example where they have a direct connection between the between the counter and that he did a converter and then we have some broad language with talks about we can have to bear in this the connections of a devices or circuit elements and any way we we choose and still be within the invention we are trying to put i understand that's being made is that you can interpret coupling to just be that all these different elements in the claim are in the same circuit because that would be surfer  already in the claim it says a circuit comprising elements a b and c in other words it's all those things in a circuit right and i was getting to that and the point is that the force definition is joining it's there join together which means these two things have to be joined together the counter and the da converter and what i was trying to say is this is a standard language church and claim drafting where you have whatever it is surprising and a series of things one two three four and five and then you set out how they're arranged organized and if it's a mechanical device it could be you want is connected to two and that means that three four and five are not between one and two similarly here who are saying that they are joined together the counter is connected and joined in this case to the deed a converter means other things are not claimed elements are not between them and that's just standard plain draft i think there's nothing wrong with that construction and it's completely with the sort of typical claim draft in claims i guess i'm confused what exactly is the board's construction so i know what it is is it joined into a single electrical circuit what is it yet joined together in a single so they're within a single and we think that means nothing more than that and the joined into a single electric circuit is there if you joined into a single lecture circuit right and if so does that mean that according to their view electric circuits can be quite large it can be a giant electrical circuit with parallel lines one is on one parallel muslim the other no feedback so no signal from one is passing to the other in fact the signal comes in parallel comes out as joined together and goes up that would meet the boys definition when it when it not i don't think of what i think when i say in series a single electrical circuit can have parallel lines that parallel lines for sure there are lots of  directly or indirectly but there it can be really big and have routes of components is every component within the circuit joining together i don't i can't and i don't think they're a single circuit lots of components do you see my problem with whether or not the construction is reasonable because they didn't choose and series in parallel they suggested and there it's absolutely possible an electrical circuit to have no feedback from one voltage or current to another two things could be present in the same electrical circuit and thereby joined into a single circuit but have no control a ship and if the board meant there was a control a ship i joined well now i'm really confused because that seems to be what they're running away from and what the district court held  sort of refuse to think about so might my point of struggle with the reasonable ness of this interpretation is i'm not positive exactly what the board is intending to cover but it seems like it would at the breath of their construction would absolutely cover a circuit which has two components that have absolutely no impact on each other within the voltage or current transmission process the problem is what we have here is a very broad claim and this is evidence  do you know that the definition in the sentence directly above all the joining the electrical circuits sentence so that it is to bring systems into such relation the performance of one influences the performance of the other then it is to group two electrical circuits in such close proximity as to prevent present mutual influence then it says and by the way the definition of what was a definition three in the list of the three two and one both include in the same piece of extensive evidence both include influence has to be a control relationship between the components for them to be coupled even in the electrical one the very electrical on the board relied on it left out the mutual influence portion of the definition i don't know maybe that's outside the record i don't you cited the dictionary told me where to look at it so i'm not sure if even though it's within the same number definition and tell me if that if you think that's technically outside of the record such that as an appellate court i shouldn't be looking at that piece of extrinsic evidence well i think the other definitions are probably outside the record but i think those were not directed to the electronics are in this one was and that's why i chose it but i've also looked at other  dictionary and that's all i'm saying it's ok it's the same definition it's not two different ones think anyway well actually it's number two and three under the electrical part so maybe they're different i don't know  i don't want i don't want to go outside my rules and tell a court and say i'm bringing you new extrinsic evidence but i just you can give me the definition you have webster's there's some dot dot dot it's in the portion you quoted the board quoted you know so i went to look at what it what's in between the dot dot dot  and that's what i found this is mutual influence stuff so i mean i don't know that's why i'm printing it which is a bore me my joint is a bit but it wasn't even the mutual influence i mean if we go to furthering the claim i think we actually have something about it having to have a control relationship and the board found that that was ma it right like right you have to single you don't have at the same voltage current or signal passing from one to the other you can have stuff in between and that still there is still can be a mutual influence on the ultimate signal despite the presence of the memory in it's the address from the counter that goes to the memory and tells it which number to spit out and you've read this whole record do you think this is a case where the district court got the construction wrong or this is one of the narrow  just might be some room between what the actual construction is and what the broad it's reasonable construction it's well i do think that the the district court didn't really grapple with it because i don't see the district court i mean the least that the term doesn't even appear in the specification and much less defined in the specification but if it is a reasonable construction which i'm not sure it has and this i think for sure is a case where there is a there are some here between the two if you look at the arguments that were being made before the district court i mean a lot of times these cases you have to understand the underlying arguments being made and so by the different parties on either side in terms of the arguments made by both sides and i think that's the arguments were similar to what's been made before this court but much abbreviated and and the time just a couple of comments and i think pragmatically the criticisms of the district court one we don't know whether or not the board had those same criticisms or felt at all what counsel just described because more didn't say anything but if if the district court's activity in doing the claim construction was unreasonable wouldn't one have expected fairchild to have appealed that construction when it would have cleverly and carefully around such a statement but i did definitely did not find i didn't interpret her to say i'm reasonable why the board's construction is unreasonable is it the same source material it is it is in the claim those claims were the original claims it's part of the original specification that the specifications disclose it is that the relationship between the components which is recited as the clinic the specification and the claim language emphasizes repeatedly the control relationship the words construction is so broad as it to eliminate any relationship agree it's possible to have a single logical circuit that's very large for two things that have absolutely no sort of information chip whatsoever that's a different question from whether or not sticking the memory in between two things obstruct the control a ship because  the prior art shows i don't believe there's any dispute of fact on what the prior of shows that would require a meaning remain but at the very least this court can rule on what the proper claim construction