fast so let me start with the type of law in this particular case we just simply asked you called to uphold the holdings of very major which happens to be verifying the logical to physical mapping software is actually important and germane to this case if you take it out that's basically the holding of their insurance has no meaning except so as i understand the director the director or usual so what adams teaches that correct don't don't you have to convince us that the director is wrong when the director says that adams actually teache so basically adams is related to testing memory softwares so when there's something wrong with the software that system memory basically we use what we call the zero in self test the best shot to send in some cases the adams case in this case but the previous case adam case is really about having the software i mean testing the system memory whether that's anything wrong with the memory and then the comparing stamp that mentioned in the record and adams is really comparing related to the system memory testing whether there's anything wrong with the hardware and then we use this piece of software the translator is up and this piece of software the mapping software crossed over atoms as well as the present vention and so and i think to come back to the presiding judge is question because she was reading from i believe the examiners final office action that was sustained on the board that said well it's true if you of the board made a mistake yet what's what's the answer in adam's data comparing step is left a comparing apples to orange and then in the current invention the comparing step is comparing also on record doesn't that lead into the director's point that you didn't preserve that argument to comparing function is something that the director says he didn't raise below  is i'm sorry whether or not the to verify phrase is a statement of intended use and the latter being if so whether or not adams discloses it and the main thing here is whether or not adams disclosed it is focused primarily on the to verify phrase in the comparing step all of the other parts of the comparing steps have been waived and are not at issue here so when the board and the examiner point to a serious stakes and talk about failure analysis what they're basically saying is that you're testing the memory device and when you look at the memory device and you find that there's some sort of error and you can't figure out where it is one of those failures could be that the that the failure could possibly be in the accuracy of the logic the physical mapping software adams does not go into what the adding doesn't explain what the multitude of failures can be it just it doesn't  schools because it says because it says that there is after you generate a bit from f you can produce a failure and we know based on events you don't applications in the art there are also ways to test the memory devices and when you find that there's some sort of problem between the simulated data and the data that shows up and you look at that you get an error and says there is an error let's just say in line one or line two if you were to open up the memory device and see that there is actually not an error the only possible conclusion well one of the possible conclusions could be well there's a problem with the mapping fathers it isn't the purpose of both of these inventions to find problem you just told me ms girl that one of our national here would know whether it was a failure in the circuit or whether it's a failure with the testing the mapping software they would look at and they would see they would look at the that it's you know the next thing that you conclude and i would argue you don't you don't need to get there i mean you it's not an active step that someone's doing if you if you believe that it's a one hundred three reference but try these other three i understand your honor and what i'm really trying to say is that we believe that it's a statement of intent to use first and foremost and then it it's not limiting but if we are to say we also believe that if you do find that limiting do that well he would he would look at the where there was so it has a mapping software that gives you locations of where there's a problem and so it tells you exactly where the problems are two three four or something like that and he would it takes pictures of the chip and he can actually look at the chips himself and figure out whether or not the problems are where the mapping software said the problems are and if the if they don't match and that's incorrect and one would deduce ok there's not a problem with th there must be something else going on here but little or does it necessarily electronics have to be adding salt is there another possibility is there too much humidity in the room or there's some other problem in is defective because there's not that if the matzoh memory chip proves not to have a failure where they're said to be a failure the number of things that could be wrong with the memory chip are necessarily infinite and that is one of the things  could be wrong with if i could i would like to talk about intended use unless you have more questions on that  yes if i said i was going to compare you and mr and g and then i stopped you would have no idea what the basis what the characteristics that i was comparing was so why doesn't this actually really matter because this limitation as expressed in the actually tells you what you're comparing them for i'm comparing you for height for volume for eyesight whatever but it gives you the basis of the comparison look at a claim to figure out what is the state of intended use versus verses a limitation that has to be present ensuring you look at what the steps are and you look at whether or not you if you were to remove the but the springs that in question whether or not the claim still has utility and in this particular instance if you would remove the to verify for you the claim still is a claim for testing in memory that still has that that have no ambiguity it still has are but again i could say compare the two of you but if i don't tell you the basis upon which i want to compare you then you might come up with a list you're right you likely will compare the two of us why are followers of his hair as he told her that i am but i was actually understand that you're saying well we don't know why we're doing it but we have a series of steps that are telling us what supposed to be like this is a limitation it's in the claim language it's not just in the preamble and say you'd like to us to read it out of the claim language entirely and it just doesn't seem superfluities to me it seems to me to give the second basis for the physical comparison that's supposed to take place at when you look at what the  whether or not a statement of intended use is a limitation or not some of the factors that are looked at is whether or not if you were to remove the statement if you are able to complete the steps in the exact same way if there is ambiguity in those steps if the claim has utility if there is a way in which removing the steps somehow makes some sort of manipulative difference and if you take out the to verify phrase in this particular claim none of that works here you still have a claim that had a way of testing a memory based has utility to verify phrase does nothing to inform a person or your scummy are and how to execute the comparing step it doesn't change any of the steps in any way it's essentially this mental step tacked on at the end to verify how does a person to verify how do you tell someone who's looking at that claim what it is they're supposed to do i wouldn't know how to shop the person to verify the accuracy it's not actively recited sure you do the patent tells you how to instruct someone to do it make sure that what's in this one place is the same thing that's in this other place that's held you there a fire rights but maybe the difference to be made sure there was an order of magnitude of each other maybe th a difference is make sure that they correspond exactly which is the case here to what presence in each location that's how you verify i say verify this is my signature by comparing it to another signature  i'm not sure what the question is or are you i apologize i know sorry i just i guess i sort of a little bit baffled about how you can say that it doesn't have meaning that it isn't is irrelevant in this claim i feel like it gives the context for just to go back i wanted to address what you were saying about whether or not fire this whether or not this is something that is an act step and you are saying you know you can and we can know how to verify because in that in that specific a sion when i read this claim i think of the to verify step as sort of this mental step that you do at the end perform all of the steps and then at the end you say based on whatever your result is ok the mapping software is good or the mapping software is bad and it is for that reason that it's because that is something that can be deduced it's in that it's in the specification of adams and i just like that if i could that the town council didn't bring up claim eight and so we don't like to rest on the it have very same way i can understand why at first glance they look really similar but as far as facts cannot be waived we actually have not waive any factual argument in that sense in fact as i mentioned earlier adams is related to testing the system memory the chip the hardware and then after that subsequent to that you use this mapping software to print out those information that's relate to any software you find directors whole argument is that easy and i have to respectfully disagree with the director on that particular incident otherwise we won't need to use the software that has that and that's exactly why we're here today is because you need the passing software in fact that i'm not a piece of variable if you have it passing software to pass your hardware and then you have this mapping software to read the results so we have basically a church still trying to get the word of us where the mistake simulated memory failure it's pretty hard for me to find anything before the board jr sees that it's a separate issue so if you get a new shot before the board make sure your arguments are much more thoroughly documented well so