data but not in a data file is this the contribution to the are these inventors made here to the art of monitoring prisoner phone calls the idea that need to construe the claim in light of the specification right absolutely or and then that specification talks about how you can do real time monitoring of phone conversations live phone conversations and so as the phone data gets sent over digitally to some storage device or somebody else remotely and then draw on that data as it's getting stored to listen to the the phone call right that's how i understand the specification and i guess my question is under those circumstances what's going on there what's getting stored and what's getting retrieved is not truly a complete set of data with the name attached to it it the data set is not complete until the end of the phone call and yet nevertheless this data that is getting stored is being accessed and so  that specification example seems to open up the idea that the claim data is something broader than this complete fixed stored set of data that you're advancing devices for monitoring the stored data file stations where if you look at claim ten it's that is where it describes the device it's likely couple to the output of the analog to digital convert file isn't supported in the record the evidence of what how a person strongly argued understand the term false why wouldn't it be if based on the example i was giving before about the real time monitoring and retrieval of data as flowing into the storage device  then pulling that out what we're dealing with in those circumstances is a ongoing building set of data that's not really a complete set of data claim it is is trying to story i guess i'm i'm so i'm responding to your point that there's no support in the specification for this kind of understanding look whereas it seems to me either there is some support  it's consistent with your chair addressing now you said that there is no evidence in the record to support that p tabs construction but what about that dictionary definition that they relied on and in fact treme converter claim that was not addressed yet in the questions of the panel so d t l claims that streaming converter should have been construed to be a completely separate physical devi from the analog to digital converter first of all that hardiman is a new article and it's part by the doctrine of judicial stoppel because they advanced the claim construction argument specifically for the term streaming converter and contains none of the requirements of separateness or distinct physical entity so we believe that's been waived and there judicially a stop even if the court were to consider it though it's actually contrary to the claimed instruction that they advocated that was actually adopted which referred to finding a stream converter in hardware and or software and additionally in any event it's contrary to the actual specification which there is no location that's described for the streaming converter and the word pointed that out of the integrated access to vice and this is from the appendix twenty four in the final written decision so i think the seven three they advance this point and nowhere did they ever argue that as a matter of claim construction of these had to be separate this court has repeatedly said that you cannot articulate a claim construction  below and this claim construction came out in the initial days saying that they didn't argue that the prior art reference doesn't disclose a streaming converter to the board they argued that the prior art reference could not have them in the same device ok that's correct however they are to believe that this on appeal here is a client instruction issue that argument was never made they're trying to transform this into a claim construction issue in order to get out of the they can't propose that the correct definition of streaming converter contains no separateness requirement and repeatedly make that argument to the board and then come to this cork and argue that the device but the construction itself that was adopted by the board and was advocated by t t l calls for this to be an hardware and or software there is no requirement literally there cannot be a separate physical requirement this is merely a narrowing construction it's certainly not the broadest reasonable construction it's a narrow construction that's being applied by g p l after the fact kit way below and in making that finding they recognized that a single device could have this both both devices there and that's clearly disclosed so we don't think there's any error at all in the claim construction point that these must be separate can you consider the data files question absolutely or are so with respect to the construction of data files several points first of all they actually noted that the board tried to do a claim construction on the word file didn't are they didn't they said in the so can we just get to the merits of what's the right understanding of the word file datafile absolutely i think at this point though i would i would trick claim construction data files and then they're complaining that the board went to a shelf and found a dictionary and then found the definition of liked and used did without either side having ever seen that definition or proposed that definition or had a chance to respond to that definition so that is their complaint and you sure are they clearly had the opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration if they felt aggrieved by not having an opportunity to respond i would suggest of the fault actually lies with t t l because they raised this at the outset of the first five at the i think it's commendable that the board took it upon themselves at that point to provide a claim construction but they're arguing that they didn't have the appropriate time to respond to arguments from the board it should have been raised earlier in the process for them appropriate but in any  used by a program as the court found is virtually indistinguishable wrong their argument of a collection of data how do you deal with that sentence that i think is clearly wrong in the board's opinion that's in a very part of the opinion you're relying on with a saying pad owner does that inform us nor can we find language in the claim itself requiring that the data be stored in a particular manner such as a data block a desk or a file i mean the claim itself  does that's actually contrary to how this court is applied the doctrine of claim differentiation when claim differentiation arises in the context of two independent republic that's answering my question which was would you think the board was correct particular manner such as in a file so the way i read that you are is the board was not saying that it doesn't use the word file clearly if it said that i think that's incorrect instead what it's saying is it doesn't references storage it actually says that it may be stored in a relational database and they point out in their decision that in the taishan of a may there means that it's not being conversation dated to file figure six step one twenty two storing data files of conversation david in mass storage if this is the disclosure that is specifically referenced in r if i understand your argument you're telling us that what the board has done here is adopted at your claim construction and then found that raid teaches that construction of that claim i'm titian in addition t did in the four corners of the board decision i think you're telling me that the board basically made a tentative holdings out of the findings on why they were a reference to just this particular claim limitation under any understanding of that claim attention i missed that point i only saw two of the finding that re features that claim the limitation under one particular understanding of that claim i e your preferred understanding of that c several references are incorporate referenced as prior art and then this in the background section of break in on hong kong to proceed to criticize the prior explain why of course they think radio is an improvement over the are there is no with our few systems what they're trying to do here to take a break is it's really obvious it's trying to combine two separate references together because one was referenced in the other and this anticipation requires that you know of the claim that the prior where this principle of separate elements under back to back to be tied to comes to play the two cases they say how to track the technology in both instances to specification said these two structures can also be