over two the st one i don't think that the board really appreciated and looked at the specification and the reason is if you look at the ooc reference and you go and look through the go off reference o intercepting you know there you're talking about i guess what was said back in ask isn't kirk up what is it that the office is alleging is the commission request so in kirk up you have this you know permissions module manager right and so what exactly is the commission's request so is it the communication that it's received from each software application or is it as is the border or the exam or sometimes it suggest some sort of top up interface that actually  shows you and gives you the ability for and use it to except in the st case i would say if it's actually the communication of receiving from that software application at the appalachian missions module i would say that's just the intended float right i mean  the permissions request is communicated from the software application and then received at the application permission module that's i don't know how that's really being interrupted in progress it's just being communicated in accordance with what the application expects to do under the nd if you modifying necessarily interrupting well i would say that they've they've received it and i don't know that they're really interrupting to talk about it  be done again later after the users made their st position presumably i think in contrast what the president occasion the present claims of focusing on is you have a communication up emissions request that is sent out  in the kirk of reference is only displayed after that missions request communication is fully communicated it's never of that screen which the board and the office and the examiner seem to suggest constitutes again it's s construction with regard to intercepting was too broad should be set aside for yes is is there anything that prevents you from amending your claims well here we actually tried to work with the examiner several times to amend the claims at one point even sat down with the examiner the inventor did as well and tried to work with him and we proposed multiple different claimants we actually did it in the claims he came up with this and repeatedly every time we admitted to claims he came up with a new on reasonable claim construction and eventually we we just decided to appeal it maybe that was the wrong call but ultimately we don't think that that is factual findings and reading of the references is correct here well i need you calling you you seem to be complaining that intercepting was so broad that it would read on intercepting a request from anywhere and seem to be arguing that the claim we should be limited to require that request be generated in iraq in a remote location or something to that effect why not just put that in the county we certainly can't a was construing it to be intercepted information requests at all and that's most clearly emphasized by the construction of intercepting to read on the a lot authorization prior art flow it was specifically disclosed in that specification as  you know would help if you could argue if you could amend your claims and clarify exactly what you're trying to find trying to resign i think to me that's the the problem here is that you've left yourself vulnerable to the arguments that you're saddled with what you're here as an applicant you have the right to amend it entirely correct your honor i think that one of the frustrating parts and this off sit down after this but is that you know the examiner figured in office actions would just allege in a blanket matter recite all the plain recitation back at us and then allege with some sort of blanket cite to a portion of a reference that it was  disclosed when in fact it wasn't there but if you mend the claim then you can argue specifically to the examiner know here it is it's in the client and when we have meant it he would then use that you admitted language and just point to the same portion or a different portion even though it just wasn't there like decide if you disagree with their construction yes i believe so because substantial evidence supports the rest of the board in the examiner's conclusions with respect to claim twenty two dollars in particular for those additional limitations that it focused on the  examiner laid out where each of the limitations was disclosed by the combination of card up and the off reference in response u n c chose just to say that it was not disclosed that's pretty much the summary of their argument that are and a summary of its analysis in light of just saying no it's not there i think that's a pretty good case of substantial evidence supporting the examiner and the board's interpretation this being briefly to the board's construction intercepting as i mentioned it's disclosed by barca under their construction i think it's pretty clear that perk up explains that you have this phone and you want to install an app and before this model was invented by per receiving of a personal mission request which is the exact same language that kirk accuses and it's paragraph twenty three dollars which your honor system earlier so finally i think with respect to claim twenty two the last my i'd like to raise is that there about section one four point two i don't believe my co counsel actually identified where that was raised i don't believe that there's any precedent supporting the fact that the a p a provides some loopholes that you can only raise arguments for the st time on appeal to this court  in addition they raise the argument that the web browser extension is not an authorization server that was not raised but low indeed they focused on functionality throughout the case about the function of the web browser extension and that's exactly what the it doesn't even specifically allege or try to support the examiner's findings regarding this that this is somehow disclosed in the reference and study examined the solicitor proceeds on the waiver theory of this was somewhat waived and similarly proceeds on a waiver theory explanation of exactly why is not i would submit that's not raising a new argument that's responding to points that's additionally explaining emphasizing why it's simply not contained in the prior art examiners entire allegation and made a specific factual findings basically just quoting the claim recitation and then pointing to three different sections of the reference without actually explaining where in the reference it was the fact is it just isn't there i mean it  is it is a strange thing to ask you to flip the prima fucking burden to ask the applicant to go through the entire every single section or cited or quoted and then explain why each one of the sections does not represent their side and claim language year i loaded via the web browser and determined by the web browser simpson that you are i can take that step that claim limitation is just not found a lot in the o of two point of reference which isn't surprising given that the entire specification talks about how it's an explain exactly why that limitation is not there then saying that it was waived we raised the argument below that limitation was not there we have attempted to explain why