standard in a reexamination no it did the parties agree that however we decide that issue determines the rejection clearly and so there's two limitations at issue in the takes a country the other limitation has to do with the mounting of the labels in the slots a and b happen claim itself says that the labels are mounted over the slots owner takes the position that that should be construed to say mounted so as to cover the slots of the patent office takes a position that the claim should be interpreted more broadly  if either of the pap miller's claim constructions are adopted as as the proper construction then the final rejection as obvious would go away so if either  adopted or both are adopted then the claim doesn't read all the prior excited by the exam or so you can see the standard is the broadest reasonable interpretation i do i do and so your argument comes down to th that this was this was the boards and the examiners view was unreasonable that's correct and it's unreasonable because because of the specification of the patent which has to be considered as part of that their inconsistences that make those instructions on reasonable so that the place to start with this analysis shows that the prior art that they're talking about back on the key and so that the place where they start that construction is another limitation labels mounted over the flops and they say that that limitation would include that something the labels are mounted on top of the slots and therefore if the label is on the top surface of the key it's in a plane that's on top of the slot through which the key is passed ok and that's where the patient that there is no space to separating the key from the slot so i submit that if if you put the slot if you put the key in the slot then there can't be a between so normally would think of drawing a straight line between light source and key in the slot would be in the middle  patent office says that limitation d requires a sequence full configuration starting from the back and going to the front what what the patent office said was that the limitation that talks about the slot being between the priority structure that they're talking about is a light source a key and a label on the top of the of the key so i don't see how this interpretation this limitation support position the other thing that the patent office says is that claim one says nothing about how this time yes understanding the technology right the label is not entirely over and the label would be on the on the face of the key that's extended away from them from the front patent office looked at the dictionary definition of for example mounted over and found that it was susceptible to two or three different definitions from the dictionary and went to the specification and notion that you can have a definition by implication and i would submit that really the specification here in which the only way in which the labels and the slots are arranged is a single way there is no alternative of how the labels are arranged well this is a definition by implication the claim itself though no don't have to start with a claim to see if there's anything in there that dictates the well i wouldn't go all that far at page nineteen of the patent offices brief they say claim one says nothing about how the keys are placed in the cleaned up or that's incorrect play one has what you point to but there's nothing in here that the only respect in which slots come up in the claim is with respect to the placement of labels there's no discussion of slots after the keys are placed through the friend so at what point in time are the labels received by the slots in this design the labels are received by the keys the keys are received by the slots but the label isn't on the cheap when it goes through the slot so i don't understand how they have that device that structure to meet the limitation slots for receiving labels regardless of whether it's the contemplates an invention wherein you have a slot that's used for both the key and the label i understand appellant wants to limit this claim to an environment where we have two slots one for the key one for the label the problem is this claim does not communicate back out of scope and there hasn't been the kind of clear expressed disavowal of any other particular embodiment such that we can say with you know with some kind of good luzhin that different positions you think  we were talking here about an appeal from of typical claim construction district court because when you look at that when you look at the specification in particular figure three in some of the unlike a district work where we're left with a static record the claim is with the claim is in the spec to this with the spec is we're maybe trying to marry the two or try to understand the two here to the extent that there is some disconnect between the patentee wants to limit himself to that by him it should make it expressed in the claim i guess what you're saying is that there's nothing in the claim and although the specification does reflect this your that has to be your argument that's correct articles we agree there clearly is an environment that reflects the construction he wants to give this claim but the problem here is we have a patentee that has said right before he launches into his claims don't limit me to m and then he writes a claim in which he doesn't graft himself to a particular and body so it's exactly that type of scenario where the broadest reasonable construction standard says ok i understand what you're telling me you wanted to do the problem is you didn't do that so if you want to limit yourself to the only body and not just isn't it not so your honor in fact one of the reasons why the board's construction is reasonable is for example if we look at the in the abstract and in fact in the context describing the person buying it he simply describes keys and label says nothing image in the spec prefer to just mention where slots are mentioned contemplates separate slots for labels and keys but at the same time i i recognize as you say there's no disclaimer right we do there's a number of sort of problematic kind of an interesting case in that regard it is it's problematic from the perspective of what applicant want to this court to do or at and t wants this score to do because i guess i could see the know i'm sorry for jumping you know what i want to do before i finish with what i want to ask point the opposing counsel picked up on how if you look at the drawing in the government brief i guess it's opposite  not seeing the whole get google there what you're seeing is that there's the key there's the label and the slot is behind it i mean admittedly there the slot is kind of receiving both the key and the label but the label is still over the slot from the perspective i have a sl here and i have a label here there's a space between them and this brings us back to i promise to go back to your earlier question about the evidence if you look at the claim language the other elements of the claim which is eminently consistent with this sort of  layering sequential definition that the board has given to the orientation of the slots relative to the keys and the labels if we look at it between the claim says i have a slot that's between a light source feet that's exactly what's depicted in the prior art i mean to bring into this courtroom this podium is between your honour's and myself i wouldn't use the word between to describe this podium of relative to the light source and you this podium isn't between the ceiling light slot key you know it's difficult to see how between can mean what they say at the reply brief the page is six to seven which means in a located in a different space there's no common understanding of the word between that means different that he's advancing a construction of a term of terms not rooted in this back it's not even rooted in the ordinary meaning i don't know i think what we're saying is in the base of the constructions might we have to come up with the construction correctly twenty and you're telling to come up with one that excludes and i understand that you're saying that construction your property right now would exclude the only disclosed and well i think it's not limited to that particular embodiment and even to the extent i submit to this court even to the me and in fact if you look at for example you resolutely if you're going to deviate from that can construction it's because you have later filed claims where clearly something is going on they're trying to cover more than maybe with the necessarily get there using the terms that are even in the clay and so in that scenario where you have a construction from the p t o that's reasonable in light of the terms of the claim and it's consistent with respect for the reasons we explain everything that's the way we should go why because we it's a reasonable interpretation if you want to avoid that trap or taishan to limit his claim to a particular environment he should do it in the claim well as he makes an additional argument as i understand it which is look this is all you should almost read more broadly now the clear disclaimer of this prosecution record has certainly nailed the coffin down tight so that's an additional reason why perhaps we should accept or the p t o should accept their those kind of collateral auxilary ways of committing claims because we can do it in the claim i mean to be sure somebody reading in the division record in the record of this this case might say ok he's clearly limiting cells about bob it probably is if i just pick up  seven iron for patton and i read the claim it doesn't communicate to me that you limit yourself to the preferred body and that's why congress provided in section three or five in the reexamination you can amend your claims and we use the broadest reasonable to drive that policy towards putting the clarity where not in the litigation record in the construed for purposes of infringement only in a market context and there was no the court didn't say the claims are or construed to presume thout so so i think that the fact that the district court