related patterns that all share the same specification the board considered the term challenge in the eighty two dollars pattern which is that issue here as any path for transmitting signals this is inconsistent invention it was a specific traditional type of channel frequency band that channels in the middle of your position i understand that but a follow up on judge sauls question isn't it true that r f signals way the written description is written there's something about your usage of the term channel that channels us all to think about r f channels right yes and there f just stands for radio frequency and the parties agree that that's just a spectrum one portion of the electromagnetic overall spectrum so all rest is just a just a modifier range radio frequency so a radio frequency signal having a radio frequency channel is no different than a radio frequency signal having a chat if it's a star signal necessarily has to be a radio frequency channel in our signal so the you're again equating aren't signals on a channel with necessarily the channel being at r f channel and and that takes me back to what i thought we agreed on which is that our out signals don't necessarily have to be on our channels and they can use there can be other modulation schemes and working with transmitting our of signals there could be in a vacuum but even the board found here in the intrinsic evidence all discussion of the invention was in the context of a traditional channel which is a frequency band there's no mention of nontraditional unique types of channels like in c d m a and the intrinsic evidence there is no mention of c d m a at all so what would happen here it even me the remainder of the sentence that you did not quote clarifies what he's getting at in this declaration when he refers to our channel that means any kind of channel that can carry on our signal because experts started with the assumption that the construction was path after transmitting electrical signals and i and in the beginning of the paragraph one hundred and twenty two dollars he then says nothing to suggest another meaning is necessary frequency band what if we conclude that what the board did here was st trying to figure out whether the term channel has an ordinary meaning in the are divorced from the patent and found that there was but then also investigated the specifications and concluded that the specification did not use the term channel in a way that was interchangeable with r f channel but instead was consistent with the backdrop understanding i mean your you had your own expert explain how channel is a very broad term and the term channel itself doesn't say anything about what type of  when the board looked at the written description he didn't see anything that defined down that ordinary broad understanding conception of channel to be necessarily are after and yes there are body mints that describe an r f channel but not so much in a way that says it must be in our channel specially when the written description also talks about other things like the use of digital p c s and cellular telephone our expert immediately followed up and said in the context of this patent a channel can only be a frequency that he addressed that section of the specification which was talking about that when i mentioned d c s and so of telephones never the channels discuss with traditional frequency bands there is nothing that suggests they go outside of the box and consider a nontraditional channel that just doesn't fit in the invention the board explained that when considering the other i p r as well when considering the term are a channel and the only difference between our channel and channel is a modifier radio frequency the underlying noun is the same a channel that are channels the same as a regular channel but for the radio frequency doesn't by removing the modifier are us it doesn't transform the noun into something different it will bring in c when there are multiple different types of channels and there's one of those type frequency channel even though in this set of claims it seems as if the patent owner has purposefully omitted that t that that may be true but in the context of the intrinsic evidence there's no suggestion of nontraditional coding channels that doesn't fit it just doesn't apply and the way that the board got there was by saddler there's a special type of cellular c d m a so therefore the intrinsic evidence must somehow be contemplating c d m a but that's not that that's changing the intrinsic evidence there's no suggestion that background of the patent is anything but traditional study are there other types of channels are there like time division channels for the same reason those or not they don't fit into the context of the invention which is combining channels to increase catteries these are just traditional frequency division channels go back to the beginning of television standard our expert explained it all contacts this fits so you only thing that channels and frequency band as this is just simply thrown out the the the underlying now no it's not that i'm and it's not i think the adjective that describes channels anymore the adjective being radio frequency spectrum your honor's may have please the court i think i'll try to pick up on the line that was just going about our of channel versus channel and consistently in the specification in other words implied definition to refer to a frequency band channel so from looking at that term of the abstract you really have to look at what the patent office or what the p tab already did they found an implied definition of r f channel that linked it to frequency band here in this battle we do not have our of channel we just have channel and as your honour's pointed out that channel by itself is a is a broad term and when you go to mr wexler berger's declaration when you read that entire paragraph at one hundred and twenty two he points out exactly what he means and that channel in this is often used with some other term to identify what type of channel so it used r f channel to define the frequency band channel according to the patent office and it talks about analog channels and digital channels so what they're asking  to do is take a generic term a broad term that no one disagrees is a broad term and read something in there that would narrow the near the definition so what's the reason for doing that and you know if you go through your standard claim construction canons here we look at the claims is the claim deck dictate that channel should be narrowed to frequency type channel where there's nothing in the claims other than that that they point to other than the word r f signal and what is  us it tells us nothing r f signal is just tells us which portion of the electromagnetic spectrum we're talking about you know the electromagnetic spectrum goes from you know gamma rays still visible light down to radio signals and it just tells us which portion of this the spectrum are in but you can have multiple types of channels with any within any type of radio frequency if you look at mr webster burger at that paragraph one hundred and twenty two that was brought up he actually points out where those different channels were used so there's nothing in the claims that require it now you look back to your spec just going through your standard plank structure and there's no specific definition of r f channel i thought was no one would be here on this and then that leaves us with is there some kind of implied definition and the most you have here is that they have a preferred embodiment that uses specific types of frequency channels in this court found over and over again that a single in body means even if it's just described as a single on body image much less a preferred bottom it doesn't justify reading something into it from the spec into the claims and we don't even have that that standard single embod apps that are f channel they found a consistent usage throughout the spec were every time that they used r f channel it was tied to the environment that had a frequency band limitation so they found an implied definition for r f channel in the spec and when you remove that r f now you're not looking at the same term anymore you don't have the implied definition anymore only issue is due process that they weren't given due process there seems to be a little bit of confusion in the briefing about that just to point out to make everything clear and my fault in the briefing there were two grounds that were put in the petition ground art relates soley to ground one and you can see that in the board's decision it's sold with round one as foreground to the board actually refers to the works of our declaration looking at appendix two to four it cites to the works of our declaration to a three to a four so now we're all the way into the institution decision and when you get to the final ridge decision on the ground to the board the board ever that they would not consider qualcomm as bolstering evidence granted the statements that appoint to buy and my opponent are solar related to ground one which died on institution final piece would be on obviousness their argument is not that the combination is improper not that it can't be done but that the board didn't articulate its decision properly there are almost ten pages of description explaining the obviousness combinations and many many individual fact findings on that so the board actually not only went through and affirmatively label or laid out several facts on why these could be combined the board and then specifically went in rebutted the evidence that my bonus put forward that said you know there is not sufficient description and pointed to fact evidence both from the experts and from the record so i have nots in here anything specific today of course but with those if in those nine pages there seems to be significant evidence but definitely substantial underlying noun channel remained constant in cisco's instruction it was always a path because it was either an r or a path the board however said for an r f channel it's a frequency band and they said every embodiment everybody would disclose discuss its frequency bands they went to the background i think they made a mistake interpreted the background right in c d m a where it doesn't exist sid and said we're going to change they basically change the definition of the underlying term channel and cisco recognize add back in the original petition so that's we can consider de novo we believe that construction cannot stand we believe the construction