hundred ten to which i'm sorry are thirty five or thirty or thirty and thirty one you know yes you're right do you agree that your argument regarding a lack of motivation combined the two prior re ferences is identical to the motivation to combine arguments you made in your appeal just now yes overall it has some difference without the clip applicability of the claims like single security code in particular we  think there was a real stretch to say innocent teachers using a single security code that was unfounded but in general yes the arguments again combining rough against combining rock on the tennis and apply to all and did you agree that claim twent if with respect to claim thirty one of the eight hundred patent the parties contests to what extent m t i properly race certain issues before the people have final decision implicat by the board and the board did not and the board actually reviewed the issue now the as far as claim construction with respect to claim thirty one petitioner did raise that issue in the petition and it was your position in the petition that that claim that claim element should have no weight i guess it's just an intentioned use limitation for al teaches it did not actually present that instruction well not not that precision what we said as claim thirty one is directed to the uniqueness of the security code we pointed out that in the specification there is no differentiation between the unique requirements set forth and claim one and any any of the other different types of uniqueness required and you raised because it wasn't raised by anybody else in other words our position was that there didn't need to be a precise definition given for in order to consider the issues before the board or in the petition the board didn't actually need to define the meets and bounds of the of the term unique but what it needed to conclude is that  that's the i'm in as far as yet that's going to be the first time we said that there's in reality not a distinction between the unique requirement claim one and that of claim thirty  but what was said is that and what the board concluded and both the that and both the institution decision and acknowledged in the final written and on the rehearing what you didn't say about ok so on rehearing they didn't address that issue in the final written decision itself right am i correct about that well show us please we're he talked about ninety page ninety eight i mean what what they said i mean what what what the board talked about on page ninety are is that the language somehow imposes some type of structural that from single six security code generally so on the one hand what they're saying is that this seems to be more unique so this somehow means more unique even though there's no differentiation in the patent for different levels of uniqueness what is also saying that somehow this is such that limitation imposes a limitation on some type of the key or some type of a programming station but it claim of thirty one imposes no limitations on the program extension of claim one an old limitation on the security device for the key of claim why isn't there a limitation on the security code right it's a limitation on the security code and that's and that's the point that i'm making really if you like you argue th our code is just a code and there's no such thing as a randomly generated code and instead keep programmed by different programming station will be capable of arm disarming if it has the same code is is that i mean that took me aback if you have a different system with a different kind of key and it has one two three four five in it as did the key from the other system it's  work in that system if you have if you have a key that's going to be basically the same type of a program of stations where you have two programming stations so that they are described in the eight hundred is certainly possible the way i read what you're doing is something from an entirely different kind of system which has the same code numbers would work well it seems to me unlikely it's going to have the same type of a code if it's going to have two keys but if it's going to have if it's going to have to code and those two codes are going to be transmitted wirelessly then then yes it's going to be receiving that code unless there's going to be some other type of data in there that causes it to recognize but if if the only difference that we're talking about is the randomly generated code so in other words it has all the other components but it's going to have to be the same system no matter what i mean what what the eight hundred patent is really talking about are is certainly not talking about hey our concern is that someone's electronic car key is going to that's my question that's why i read your argument saying that well what what we're saying is that if you have say from the same manufacturer you have that's what our argument really is if you have  keys from the or to programming station from the same manufacturer and the codes are randomly generated chances are i suppose are going to be different and so if you randomly generate codes with each one chances they'll be different but there's also nothing in there with respect to random generation two to ensure that they won't match if if you have two programming stations from the same manufacturer and they're the only difference is they both randomly generate there is a chance if it that it has on the probability of the you know of the system it's kit the systems capability but what the board heard construed claim thirty one and did so for the first time is saying that the key itself or that the six it's something more than just the security code is something more than just the uniqueness of the security code and something more than the randomly generated unix security code rather it's an incredible ability of a key point in capability of a programming station but but no additional program at the claim thirty one does not add another program extension it does not add a second key and it doesn't impose a limitation on the first program execution or the first i'm having with your argument is that i don't see where you argued this in your petition for example looking at page eight to sixty eight the appendix i'm looking at your petition did you originally filed in this case and instead of saying that this claim would teach doesn't have weight you say that the prior teachers to this claim limitation and this is with respect to belden it's a different piece of her that you specifically say that beldin teaches that the key will not function with that other stores different way that that wasn't our argument but what our position was is that because we didn't need to precisely determine what caused it what constitutes a unique security code we said that if according to the eight hundred patent if a code is randomly generated it is unique and that uniqueness would be a that would cover any of the are presented too late we put them on notice first off the board initially is to show decision said claim thirty one adds additional requirements we then said that in our  its petition is having meaningful limits that needed to be addressed so we submit that the intended result argument is new and shouldn't be considered as is the obvious even in light of the board's construction order and some other  d on the the this is not a case like s a s where there was a substantial change between a construction initial decision in the final rip decision and this is more  and undercuts into your eyes argument that by definition there must be a construction to institute  anticipation so the the board clearly said that told n p r that you have to approve arming upon a matching to establish the anticipation including as to claim thirty one one of the genzyme therapeutics case the question for compliance with the a p a due process is did the parties have adequate notice of the issues that would be considered a decided and we submit the answer here is clearly yes in regard to the claim thirty one doesn't the specifications say in itself saying that result automatically flaws well that you know certain of the claims are not limited to or don't require other stations but i alarm and doesn't doesn't that recognize that this is the automatic result of the system i would submit you know what that shows is there and we agree this is a limitation on the we think there are different levels of uniqueness again the sorry doesn't dennison teach that so long as you have a ability to turn the lock into a learning mode any key could reprogram the lock four seven patent it's talking about the affirmative limitation of arming upon a matching it does not deal with the incapability certainly not the incapability both farming industry or me moreover the finding as to that claim was that it result no we did that was not that was not raised in the petition i understood the petition to be saying that in fact a partner did teach the limitation and even cited to  dr allisons testimony for support for that yes yes well the limitation with respect to it it's going to accomplish it's not not that we argued that it is a limitation in the petition and you asked for of a site earlier that however you look at it grammatically such that is not adding additional limitations or not i'm sorry it's not adding additional elements or requirements of a program a station or key but at most it's code and that was specified and at least and maybe perhaps other places but at appendix two forty five that was in our petition and as far as the such that as somehow requiring things different i mean the board and its institution decision actually agreed with the position that we made with respect to a randomly generated code is sufficient to an accomplice of the unique requirements of claim water and thirty one and it acknowledged so even in the final written decision appendix page