interpretation or p r i standard to the claim language and in doing so it effectively fred the invention right out of claim one it read claim one inconsistently with the disclosure and with the intrinsic evidence including the plain language of claim one and therefore the construction that was applied by the board cannot be the broadest reasonable construction key inventive feature is the last couple steps of claim one where after the steps go through an iteration where a controller senses and overheat condition you  want to read if to mean if and when we want to read if to mean your honor cause and effect the word if in the language triggers the effect of the word something that when put in some circumstances define an event but whether the trigger the triggered event occurs within a milli second or a half a second or a second or two seconds after the triggering event that specific time period of when is not of critical importance that's a detail that a programmer of skill in the art could take into account when designing the program what's what's disclosed and what's claimed is a logical seek a sequence of steps where according to the specification and according to figure eight which is the claim you have a diagram you have a logical diagram at floor ten and above that the controller is sensing the heat sink temperature and you go down and the sensing continues through a loop where it says yes thirteen and an attempt to restart the draft and that is not discretionary that's the result and so in this case what we have is  excuse me a cause and effect situation that is a very similar to what occurred in this court's decision in our terrace and i believe that florrie was on the panel in that case it cited in our brief it's from two thousand and three and there was a similar if clause it was characterized as conditional language and the court found that due to the word if ok its present mandated that the result occur so in that particular case that if language was found to be cause and effect so what the forward thank founder with the board read into the claim was essentially divorcing the fifth step sensing from the six step of attempting to restart the drive in other words the board did not apply a cause and effect relationship the board essentially said under claim one there's a sense in step and separately there is a restarting step or an attempt to restart set and those two are not linked the board read the linking and the cause and effect right out of claim one and in doing so that use language that the attempt to restart can occur at any time or at some point and if the temperature happens to be below the second sense temperature you have claim one and we respectfully submit that that construction is way over broad it's divorced from the specification there's no indication in the four to  specification the main description of this from bottom and there's a column bottom a column nineteen in the top of column twenty and it's discussed in figure eight and there's no indication that there can be an indefinite or inter not permit discretion ok when the claim says attempt to restart if the temperature is below the second pre determined temperature level attempt to restart and that's the critical distinction over the prior art for probably the closest reference in the record as far as we're aware and the examiner found that balderas alone did not teach the last two sensing and attempting to read restart steps as cl so the board did pick up a rejection which involved danfoss as a secondary reference which i'll get to momentarily but the key distinction is that balgo or base is the attempt to restart on a timer there's a time the way it can be from zero to sixty seconds there can be up to eight attempts over ten minutes and if the restart is not successful during that time frame the system shuts down and it will remain shut down until a human intervenes at some point in time similarly in the danfoss reference there's a shut and alarmist trigger and it requires a human being to go reset the drive we've quoted the language in there for us it can be reset manually in one of three ways one of which is pushing the reset button and power has to be you have to cut the power off and reapply you're basically rebooting the system in the air force before there can be a manual restart so damn fa purely manual after you get the initial shut down because things are too high and in fact at page eight eleven eighty two and then  for their specific findings again by the examiner on the record indicating that danfoss specifically teaches away from an automatic restart and so besides the claim construction issue your honour s we respectfully submit that it was improper to combine those two references and they may be coming up to a shutdown point but after that they diverge significantly in this particular restart have been exhausted and the system shut down valve or then get sent to a human operator world an example that we gave in our briefs is that one embodiment covered by this claim is a swimming pool i'm not saying the claims are limited to a pump or a swimming pool but that's what the commercial dispute is about that  pool pump is typically on attended by the owner and so if a danfoss core valve or system were used and there was a motor overheat situation and no one was around according to dan that could be down for two weeks the owner was away he come back and have a pool that was green because who was quickly term green from algae and other invasive materials and invalid or if the restart attempt cycled through eight times for ten minutes were unsuccessful ok about the worst situation would result in the same type of analogy claim one of the four to a pat t it ensures that the problem that caused the shutdown is resolved before the attempt to restart is made and that's the critical difference and so we respectfully submit and references the finding of obviousness was well supported i'd like to make three points to your honor's that are important in response to interest position first the board's claim construction was correct and was proper second your honour's the obviousness determination made grounds different from the ones or even rejected by the district court and can't do that with a ministry of agency you have to take the state of the agency's position and call it yes or no and if there are additional grounds it has to go back to the minister agency for the strip agency to decide that question i don't know i don't know the answer to that question your honor but i think that with the references that are in front of the court particular the ones that were adopted that are sufficient for the board to uphold in obvious the court of old and obvious cause and effect relationship that opposing counsel has argued and it certainly does not support an immediate cause and effect relationship that has been advanced the claim language itself your honor as we look at the claim made which itself it merely says that there is a condition precedent it doesn't say the words only if it doesn't state restart attempt occurs in response to and none of the position words that opposing counsel uses now to characterize its claims they don't appear in the claims themselves additionally are as we look to the honors the board found that claim one only covers part of what is in figure eight it doesn't cover all of it and because of that it was reasonable for the board to interpret this term as something that is nothing more than a condition precedent but the obvious one has a variable frequency drive has the ability to sense as a heat sink over temperature condition has the ability to trigger that drive if the heating temperature is too high and it shuts it down and it also has the ability to do an automatic restart of the automatic secondly it teaches that there is a sensing of a lower temperature value or lower heats in temperature value and in fact in the danfoss system it does it discloses that there is a shutdown of the temperatures above eighty to ninety degrees it trips the trip the drive that's about that value but also it's explicitly discloses that one should wait that the system waits until the temperature is lower than sixty degrees in order to permit a reset attempt to occur now teaching those who doesn't have an automatic re you have two different temperature values you're really relying on doctor a money that professor money professor liviu really relying on on him to bridge the gap in that respect i q well not necessarily on this group or relying on him for the motivation to combine the teachers any disclosure of temperature being a trigger and i can assure the court that there is not it's simply not there and all that there is a timer second danfoss was found by the examiner at the site i gave in my opening comments to expressly teach away from an automatic restart and it's manual so the so called sensing of temperature that the order allegedly took from danfoss and plugged into bowed or to allegedly lead our claims what that is as we briefed it's a temperature that's sensed and it's the numbers put on a display it's put on a screen it's not and it's got up to ten minutes to try to successfully restart and you have a disassociated displayed temperature ok that's still first of all why would you do that this was you know there's no rationale disclosed with a specific finding supported by substantial evidence that would give you the how or why or what would happen to make this combination so first of all why would anyone do it you're superb a super for a superfluid us feature from them fast into balbir which would seemingly work fine for its own purposes on its own ok second if you took that displayed temperature from from dan foster and put it into valid or ok presumably an operator would still have to come by and notice what the temperature is and then if perhaps system had already been completely shut down because the restart attempts expired presumably then an operator could could do something but we submit that's not the claim invention at all and so on with the courthouse for questions i