on the construction of the pull in claims thirty one as the board recognized our construction of tool is consistent with the intrinsic evidence and yet the board adopted a different construction essentially it would not make the cancer diff when you're under that configuration and mechanism or operation would not satisfy pool as required including thirty one and supported by the specification ok here is merely are a couple of points to emphasize here the claim language itself which the board i think gave short shrift to indicate and demonstrates that a pull is a function that is requiring the modem processor being in control and getting the data from the application processor and i emphasize several points st of course pull is used as a verb is an active action in claim thirty one the nd point would be looking at the surrounding language of pul so we're not just defining pull in isolation or in the abstract but what is doing the polling and what is being pulled in claim thirty one dollars there are aspects that the application process is doing and specifically it is configured to hold data whereas the modem processor is configured to pull data so that contrast reinforces that pull is something that the modem processor is controlling a in the application process or be shipped to the modem processor without reference to where that data may have come from why wouldn't that be a form of p claimed self there are other claims that do exactly as you posed for instance asking or requesting information and then that information is sent and it really depends on which processor is is doing the transferring of the not simply asking for it and then the application processor is in control of sending it but in the whole limitation of claim thirty one dollars it is the modem processor that is pulling the data and it is one example that it is there is an request and an invitation for the application processor to send something and that would align with with your hypothetical your honor but it would not aligned with the needing a pull as separate term using clean thirty one dollars and we know this because the specification every time the specification discusses pull and it does it in detail into particular passages of the specification is always using pull in the context of  them processor knowing where to get the data from and the board understood this i think this is an important point to underscore the board repeatedly credited our understanding of the specification passages that run from column or wherever the application processor might be holding the data where the motor processor can go and get it and carry out its functionality pulling the data across the bus back into the mode of processor so  at appendix twenty three to twenty four at appendix twenty five and at appendix twenty seven the board is repeatedly discussing these passages columns one through ten and fifteen through sixteen and credit understanding of those disclosures as pull needing to know the location of where the data is based on for instance the disclosures of the right pointers the buffering knowing where the application process it the point you raise about the example of course there is always this fine line that needs to be balance between importing limitations from the specification and using the specification to inform the meaning of the claim and so while certainly a patent he doesn't have to spell out everything in the claim language that's precisely what the detailed discussion in the patent specification are and where pool is repeatedly and consistently used in the patent specification as  acknowledged is always in the context of knowing the location so it doesn't necessarily have to be particularly be a right pointer those are different implementations but it's always knowing where to get the data in order for the modem  controlling the data controlling the transfer of the data there is i think again and this goes back to the board's mistake while it credited the actual understanding of those particular discussions of pullet columns nine through ten and fifteen through sixteen it looked at two other portions of the specification to enlarge that meaning of pull and those not justified the board's departure from what the specification clearly explained the pull is what pulling is and i think those two reasons of the work relied on really expose the error is made so it st relied on the most generic of statements in most patten the concluding passage that of a term in the specification as the specification here doesn't collins one through ten and fifteen or sixteen when certainly that would just up and the ordinary claim construction inquiry of how the patent he chooses to disclose and describe a term that is expressed we used in a claim the nd portion of the specification that the board relied on was one other single sentence and this is a sentence in column sixteen that the board to simply mis read is the phrase that says there are other techniques but of course we have to look at what the other techniques are referencing and they're not referencing techniques for pulling while pull is used in that sentence the other techniques are describing ways to indicate data is available a precursor step to the polling and so other techniques follows along the string of disclosures about setting doorbell and polling and in that in line twelve to eighteen and again at eighteen through thirty the pattern is making clear that those door go registers and polling are ways to indicate data is available specifically line twenty seven  the port is that right that's correct your honor and of course that's not that's not a substitute for the ordinary and necessary claim construction inquiry which is what the straightforward issue is in th preserve the rain or my time for a bottle thank you ok mr saunders as good morning may it please the court does want to start by underscoring two points that came up the idea that our construction in the board's construction of pole is passive receipt is a red herring the board construed to mean receiving data in response to a request for a data so there is an action they are being done by the modem processor and then on the question about operability the board credited the expert testimony from dr landis is page twenty three to twenty four of the appendix that there was at least one other known interconnectivity boss that doesn't require an address or location to perform a poll and his testimony talked about the example that that came up of saying to the application process are essentially give me everything that you out of cubed and you know turning to the language of the claims there's no mention in them of accessing data based on a specified location no mention of right pointer context that indicates that a location is necessary and when you put the claim cerny wine in the context of the patent as a whole and the other claims it's clear that you know the rust of the patent here is about saving power by reducing the number of transitions from low power to high power and it says the problem in the prior art is that it's not being co now our prior art shows otherwise but what is trying to do is group this to the data going one way the data going the other way is being grouped during a single active state and so what you see and in all the embodiments and threw out the claims are a series of iterations on the same idea that are focused on the timing and the ditch trigger for the transfer of data so it's a claim one busy is a push after receipt claim five is a push after the expiration of the uplink timer or sometimes you have a byte counter triggering sometimes you have a packet count are sometimes you have an express requirement that just be within a single wake state and so the board's construction of poll to mean receiving data in response to a request sits very logically among all of these interation that are focused on timing and you know turning to the has tried to distinguish that language by saying this is about the the initiation of the transfer as opposed to the execution of the transfer but the fact that the specification is data in response to your request or whether the application processor is sending it over when it wants to send it and so you have that broadening language and an overall of the temp that's being made here is really just  exemplary it begins by saying i'm calling nine figure for illustrates an exemplary power saving process and in the paragraph that he's discussing the use of right pointers although there it's right pointers to and twenty one and for the figure twelve in body may you know it is immediately followed by this broad or other technique language and all of this is in a section that is dedicated to descriptions of particular embodiments that has broad language at the beginning and the end saying that the intention is not to limit these in body minutes you know the board read this will also against the backdrop of requesting it the board qualcomm has pointed to some language some examples within those definitions involving an internet context and the board made a factual finding and page twenty three dollars of its opinion that the examples weren't limited to that contacts and that's not the relevant context for the patent here in the board as they said credited the testimony of our expert dr lynn about other known techniques that would not require address there was a conflict with that testimony put it in the context of the other proceeding it pointed out some of the limited information ahead before it about that testimony and if the balance for the questions on  specific statements but you know all this from start to finish his claim language that isn't restrictive specification that is just exemplary embodiments without language you can be kidding and intend to  significance if any should we give to the fact that when this issue arose as a dispute as to the breadth of claims thirty one that was no motion  amend i think the significance is it goes hand in hand with the board's application of the b r i's standard which is you have part of the judge and this is this a case that still is governed by that standard and part of the justification there is we do that and will read this and and really resolve that ambiguity in favor of press because the pad no in our has that opportunity now we think that as we argued in the alternative even if the pad known are amended to claim here or to adopt its definition of pull it's still going to run into problems with our prior art but but the fact that there isn't that a time to a man just reinforces  the use of the be all right standard here and in resolving any of this ambiguity in our favor and that's really what the board did you know even before the board got to the beach trying to get a dense it looked at the intrinsic to amend is somehow an indication of weakness in the position of the patent owner because of the point the judge has made i just we we frequently see the statement that in the petitioners briefs that well there was no effort to amend it i've always wondered well you know should we attach any significance to that or in light of the fact that the  owner would be at least potentially confined by any amendment does that have any weight at all well i don't remember the convert go ahead remember this because in the parallel i p r is in dallas where it's appealing interest standing is being challenge so i would like to think that they were we're thinking of whether there would be further suits against intel but that'll be a question for another day and another appeal and we're by no means are urging the panel to rely on this the fact of the lack of amendment as i said i think it goes hand in hand with brightest reasonable interpretation but as we argued you know under the philip standard all the indications are pointing in our direction on these claims of not being limit honor i'm going to try to run quickly through about five points and i think i'll just start where we ended which is the question is everyone agrees is clean construction not consequences or choices to be made based on amending t claim and it is the bill of inquiry though st there was a point that pulling could be read as receiving i would just direct the court to other claims such as claims one hundred and twenty nine and ten which are sufficient for receiving but pull demand something more as used in claim thirty one the nd point was that there were references to other buses that that may not require pull as claimed thirty one does that is a reference to exhibit one thousand and twenty one the board explicitly said it was not relying on that exhibit this is an appendix twenty seven to construe pool in fact that reference never describes a pull it's simply a different way of operating but the question here is not what any and all by saying for example this court case law is clear that when you are evaluating what might be an example you have to look at the context and the person of ordinary skill in the art reading that passage would recognize it as an example of the particular bus mentioned there the c i e bus it's not pulling in everything in that column or the patent particularly ringback when there is no other use of pull in the patent than one that requires a specified location as the board recognized in credit t which is seeking a construction of coal based on one process or grabbing data over high data transfers over the interconnectivity bus using ring buffers and needing to know where to grab that location data where the location