ready to proceed your honor ok thank you construction st that list on page forty one of its brief addresses the logic element and its claim construction and that list says by requiring a logic element that responds to all four a numerated signals the claims cover a logic element that responds to all four of the enumerated signals at least some of the time and that at least some of the time is important the construction that google argued was that the claimed phrase at least in part and at least required a disjunctive construction and that list by argument appears to agree if if the claims cover a logic element that at least some of the time does not respond to all four i human or enumerated signals that's the disjunctive construction then the claims are invalid based on what the board has already found the board found that a midi discloses generating output chip s and your argument beginning with the at least in part does that argument is that argument the same with respect to the claims that do not contain that language correct your honor and i have two points on that would that be since you're relying on that particular phrase which i gather is not present and some claims well the claims all the appeals claims either require at least or at least in part and google's position is that the construction is the same whether the language is at least in part or at least i'd also point out that the board in its rehearing decision found the claim is representative of all the of the other claims claim one doesn't clue the language at least in part so in in our view the construction of the logic element and whether it is  they'll correct me if i'm wrong but i understand what that was to be saying is that it must respond to all four ask the same time too in french but it doesn't have to always be in an infringing mode is that different from what you described well i think at the very least it's unclear and what google's position is is that the board after net less amended its clients in two thousand and sixteen to include this language and to fundamentally change the claims the board was required to perform a claim construction analysis and so the confusion that's generated by the arguments that netflix medalist excuse me is making on appeal really just confirms why the board should have done claim construction in the st place respond to all four period and then said that the plain language of the claims got them there isn't that enough it is correct your honor that the board said there was a conjunctive construction but the problem here two require that the logic element generate signals in response to those input signals the board recognize that shift in the claims and much of a nd decision is directed to that issue what the board did not do and failed to do was to address the roles of the signals the roles of those input signals in the generation and perform claim construction recognizing that shift in the claims so while it is true that the board said it was a conjunctive construction the board never explained how that could be so or what the role of the input signals was and that's particularly everything about all the system work what all that doing is trying to decide if that language requires this juncture or contract of examination of of the for signal well because string the claims must do it and looking at the specification must be consistent with the specification in the specification must be examined so we are not making a written description prescription argument what we are arguing is that in considering the claims the board was required to look at the specification and in looking at that generating operation what was and in what circumstances can both a bank address signal or bank address signals and a row address signal be used to generate those output output signals that are claimed and what's the role of those in that generation now what the board implicitly found when looking at the prior art was that the bank address signals have the same function as the ro address signal and the board makes that point on appendix one hundred and thirty six dollars they cite to earlier the earlier board decision at appendix sixty nine dollars sixty seven cents so it appears that the board found that the bank address signals will be  they will have that role in memory expansion similar to the ro address signal now the problem with that is that construction and requiring both the input back address signals and the ro address signal to perform that function is not consistent with the specification the specification explains that it is the ro address column address or internal bank address that that acts as a density transition bit it is not all of them it is one of them and that's a column twelve lines twenty nine to thirty two and  table want is consistent with that table one identifies what signals are used to generate the output signals and table one shows that it is chip select signals and the row address signal the bank address signals are not shown at all and that list expert agreed with that at the very beginning of the reexamination he described the operation of table one the logic element forty generates netlist expert in explaining table one recognize that that your entire argument with respect to the language was about three sentences long and the board found that that to the extent that you wanted them to look beyond the plain language of the claims or the the be clear references to those limitations in the claim you had waived that right opportunity google raise this issue and rephrased it again raised the issue twice there is no and that list has not argued that there's any issue of a waiver it was presented and requested specification it's not supported by any language that addresses how output signals are generated and when that list amended its claims to change the claims from ones that receive input signals to a logic element that generates input signals that was important in the board spent a lot of its time addressing that issue and it should have been addressed with respect to the clinton struction as well address signals are received by a logic element by the combination of the media until two now on appeal that lists points out that the board points out the board's decision for the proposition that need to remit if the court agrees with our claim construction you can reverse because the board has already found that a midi discloses the distinctive construction and the combinations of imedi would meet all the claim nothing about at least in part or at least transforms and into or as the board explained at appendix seventy seven dollars eighty eight cents to ninety one dollars at least in part makes clear that each of the specified signals must be used in some way or in some fashion to generate the output but other signals may also be used other claim language confirms the plain meaning the claims require that the logic element receive all four of the specified signals although it may also receive other signals it must receive those signals because they must use them in generating the output that's also what the specification shows at figure one a it shows a logic element that receives all four of the it can for example respond directly to the chip input chips like signals in the ro address signal and indirectly to the bank address n p o clock signals in generating the output helpful it is a l least in part and that addition into the claim to be clear judge anally google has agreed as you heard that nothing in this appeal turns on the difference between at least in part in at least i think the board did give meaning to both of those phrases at least in part does to does at least two things i think at least in part makes clear that other signals can be used that's the st thing and  it makes clear how the signal must be used that the signal can be used in some way in part directly or indirectly i think for a claim that doesn't have the in part you'd have to look to other claim language to determine whether the nd of those still applies but at least in part makes clear that the signal can be used in some fashion or in some way and that was the board's understanding the board did explain that contrary to what google says when it rejected an argument by in fiat appendix seventy seven that at least in part was ambiguous and it also rejected an argument but in fy that there was a lack of written description challenge for at least in part and the board said as i did just now that at least in part requires simply requires that the sing used in some fashion or in some way or directly or indirectly  i think i think that explanation is more than adequate under the a p a as as the court has already noted the board was expressed in adopting its construction that it was conjunctive and that was more than enough to resolve google's the issue google raised which was simply google quoted the claim language and said it's just jumped of the a p a didn't or does not require the board to do more than that but the board did do more than that because it also explained how we understood the under the board's claim construction the board made numerous found many gaps between the prior in the claims that was not simply a difference between one or multiple signals none of the  claim logic element and google and in five relied on their experts to try to supply the missing limitation but the board repeatedly refused to credit their experts for example it found that in five expert our expert dr speech and on key issues including finding that at least in one part his testimony was unrebutted that type of dispute between the experts and the the choice between which expert to credit on competing issues is exactly the type of decision that was for the board to make the board did make it is explained why it found the testimony and persuasive from the other side it and that's the type of issue that this court defers to the in terms of some of the points that we heard from the other side so what about what i mean what is your response to the point that google makes that that expert testimony was mostly with respect to reference to the previous version of the claims our expert gave three different declarations and the rd of those was after the final and then in which he walked through the specific reasons why the amended claim language was different and rendered the directly on point in the board in its final decision cited that their declaration multiple times and in reference to some of what google said are expert in in his st declaration this is that appendix nine  and fifty he did explain how the logic element uses all four input signals he explained table one but he went on to explain how the logic element of our patent also responds to input bank address signals and a few clock signal and in doing so achieve something that none of the prior art was able to achieve google also has suggested that there was some ambiguity about the role that the input signals have to play in generation but the board was expressed in what role the signals have to play it was the earlier  maui in terms of the difference of the claims claim one previously required a logic element that generates output in response at least in part to a bank address signal so that the in response at least in part to language was always there at least at that point the only change was to add additional signals joined by the conjunction and and in interpret in that earlier language in response at least in part to a bank after a signal the board explained how the signal must be used to use me it must be used in some way or in some fashion there was no limit based on whether a signal was a density transition bit or not simply must be used in some way according to the board back to your claim construction argument and i understand that it is in part predicated on the prosecution history and could you could you walk me through the  recognizes the claim already we already looked at the language of in response at least in part to a bank address signal and the only difference here the board continues that the claim did not recite that the cast signals or chips like and signals were in response to well as and the and judge bryson that the board recognized look we already interpreted in response at least in part two we said it simply requires using the signal in some way directly or indirectly and the only change now to the claims is that you've added additional signals joined by the conjunction and given that prosecution history in the board's own prior explanations i think the only reasonable reading of this claim language is that you must use all four of these  signals although you can also use other signals and you must use them in some way in part to generate the output of the top of the prosecution history me how how could you actually say that it is such a thing as prosecution history when the prosecution is so close eyes i think just at the at the simple high level that we were just talking about here in terms of the board had already said this is how i understand the claim which we then built on the board's own understanding of the claim language i think that that's just kind of relevant additional evidence but of course i think that the plain claim language and the specification on their own already require the same result i think you we could have an academic debate about there could be something like disclaimer disavowal in this context where prosecution is ongoing but we did we made numerous statements to the board repeatedly that our claims require a conjunctive construction which i think you know is just sort of the cherry on top of  all of the other intrinsic evidence which points only one direct previously was cited the bank address signal and that a gated casts or chips like signal were generated in response to that but the claims were amended and that's important and the claim amendments required and the board discusses that on the next page on appendix one hundred and twenty three that the logic element as amended must generate output chip select signals gated cas signal claim one generates resize the logic element generates chips like signals in response to signals one through four recognizing and highlighting the distinctions between the previous a new claims and that generation is important and what the board did not address is the impacts that claim change made on the construction and looking at the specification and the specification addresses the generation in response to input signals what the the board found and looking at the prior art is that bag address signals operate the same y as is not supported by the specification but that construction is inconsistent with the specification counsel also said that as long as the signals used and in some fashion or in some way but that's not what the board said what the board said and looking at the prior art and the question the board asked is do the back address signals operate as does the transition to do they operate in the same way as the road dressed signals in midi that's how they were looking at them and that analysis is is incorrect it's inconsistent with the special occasion one other point with respect to the prior art the board  its original decision was looking at figure one and council referenced figure one a for showing receipt and also a generation of the output signals and the board w confronted with an argument that well figure one is just a black box and the board said no signals that enter the logic element forty have some purpose and effect the output signals the board said that at appendix  the board also recognized that the prior art shows back address signals row address signal clock signal all those signals all of the recited signals are in put to a logic element  that so if it's true with respect to the specification that signals that enter logic element forty have some purpose and effect the output signals the very same thing should be true for the prior art instead the board said that there wasn't sufficient evidence the to address why one skilled in the art would have recognized the logic element like  generates chip select signal on the board said that appendix one hundred and twenty six but again in looking at the specification and the disclosure there and figure one a which council reference the board said well just seeing that there received by the logic element accepting that they are the fact that they enter the logic element they would have some purpose and effect the output signals the same should be true with all of the pieces of prior