issue the key word dispute is driving on a roadway as an attack on the city driving on a roadway the worst driving on a roadway carries its ordinary plain meaning but the but the patent office says that ground so it's not clear yet just take it just stay with me so what if the board and the agency said unmanned utility vehicle prior our friends contemplates more groundskeeping more plausible explanation but overall it never says that's what it is just says the line painter and a sweeper and it's not inherent it's not one hundred percent guarantee that it has to be a road speaker or road sign now i think the reference complex action of the driving driving is a complex yes will motor past that requires the full attention of the driver that is there now that we're getting to i think what could be the crux of the case  you know when i look at the dictionary definition of driving it's the controller operation of a vehicle ok control the operation of a vehicle on a road path on a roadway  i understand it you seem to be you're the premise of your argument is that a ton of us driving on a roadway is not just merely of a controller operation and of an unmanned vehicle on a road but i s some kind of vehicle that is being control in fact and navigate through traffic and obey traffic signs traffic lights traffic rules and keep up with the speed of traffic whether it's thirty miles an hour fifty miles an hour etc and i don't see any of that language in the claim and so i guess what i'm wondering is why didn't you just amen your claims this is you know an ex parte case if you really wanted all of that thinking to be part of your claim and invention then you could have amended the claims to right then make that clear otherwise the controller operation of an unmanned vehicle on a roadway i don't see why that wouldn't encompass an automated sweeper automated line inter motor with a control system with the sensor system i mean anger it's got all the power if i put everything that driving compass into the claim it would be a very long claim i what i did was driving as disclosed in the specification that's the concern i have i don't think you would want us to say oh when you said may include fourteen different things in your specification you would want to claim  to be in gorged with every single one of those fourteen things as a requirement in the i mean we don't that's not what we do with claim language in terms of incorporating everything in the specification it would be the wrong thing to do very complicated technology algorithms for having a control system that's so sophisticated you can manage the navigation of a vehicle a road it's its priority to this it's well known there's no need i already have a long specification there's no need for my specification to explain all the technical details at the time google car was already testing google google google's already testing there so striking cars it was there's nothing abstract about such a controls exist it's real life and it works and there's no need for me to explain in detail what that is a few additional points in addition to the points i judge january the control system this claim is to an apparatus claim the structure is the control system across the control system is only nominally mentioned it's not shown at all in the figures you look at the description of the car doesn't even talk about or show the control system so the structure that's needed for the control system is not given in big plane and here the anger control system is functioning to operate the actual vehicle so it's not the same as a dog just by accident i'm not even sure how the dogs do that because obviously dogs have to trust something in order not claimed here so the claim is disclose the roadway limitations that right the boards of that anger out was capable of meeting the claim limitation driving on the roadway that the i guess more precisely the board found that a the structure control system for driving on the roadway and outlets capable of meeting that control the sound so again this is an unmanned vehicle which is the control system for automated movement now nobody would suggest that a vacuum cleaner like that would be likely to travel on the road are you suggesting that under the boards capable of notion anything with a control system provable controlling itself such that theoretically you could put the vacuum cleaner out on the road and it would go straight that would meet this limitation i think in your example actually the vacuum i mean that might be broad enough  the the driving on a roadway just means operating a vehicle i mean i think especially because the description was paved roadway and roadway is just a strip of land i think arguably it could be brought in i mean this is a very broad  think the strip of land thing necessarily for me get there so tell me is the board of the view that if it has a control system which is capable of being operated on a roadway even if it's a disclosure a vacuum cleaner that molests disclose this element there certainly is case law that you know like the schreiber lines of cases where it talks about if you just have the structure that's claimed and here there is basically no structure all there is in the control system there's no further structure described everyone is in agreement that anger has that control system that it would inherently be capable of performing the same functions as the claimed apparatus so i think in this case the board didn't necessarily need to go roadway the fact that there is a disclosure of you know that you could be on a path like you're on a plot of land it talks about you know the board specifically found you know on page five that it could be a vacuum cleaner swee in the conclusion of the breach of the patent office makes an unusual quest to the scored they ask the court that if they should lose this case they want the court to remand with instructions that the patent office should continue  examination of this application with the more relevant self driving car probably art that i've been talking about all this time and basically issue a new rejection they're essentially asking the court for a court to create do over to mandate a second plot of land which is your first in the world it's driving is more narrower than traversing it's a very well right now we're just addressing whether and gotten on more it is meeting this single claim the patients because that's what the board's obviousness which actually lies upon and they make a lot of  intersection with a stop sign with two other cars there is it going to know what to do that's what driving means that ok there's rules of the road you can't just traverse the intersection you have to look