which is on my mind so it seems reasonably clear from the two patent said issue here and from the expert testimony and the board's decision that  problem being addressed is getting that data right that is in turn mapped onto a flat screen and that the mapping is  correction and what not for all of the orientation components is what bachmann is about two why is that object itself has to be not magnetised mr case and this is judge chen just a follow up on judge toronto's question are are you saying that  that i just need a yes or no answer to that question just so i can follow along with your train of thought absolutely the claim itself does not talk about human line that is correct you on the claim simply toss about tracking the orientation of the sensor right and and so there's nothing in the claim per se that excludes the sensor being in a handheld but there's something in the claims of your patent side we patents that are limited to metallic devices so the all and i understand i understand samsung's phones or other people's phones are magnetic but there's nothing in the claim that restricts the scope of the claim t was among the few classifications listed in bachman as having been searched is that immaterial that there is at least that kind of perhaps quite of time and i think as was clearly expressed in the colloquy there is the sort of very simple connection of clear findings by the board supported by substantial evidence that lucy a painting of the orientation data or the mathematical method by which one combines the output of sensors and then turns that subject of the claim somehow has the data that it is using it has claimed is data are relative to other sensors can i may have orientation sensors in and of themselves and that means they have within them the three thirty three magnetic centers the three  tried to point out the distinction between thing bachmann sensors track orientation versus bottom something track the orientation of limbs with respect to one another because that really minimizes i think the mapping takes the three d pointer device and renders it into a different image so you know rather than say having an image of the three image of the person but this is all sort of amounts to exactly the same thing because what bachmann system is doing is taking the orientation of each lead segment and then it has to substance to this sort of attempt to attempt a distinction what the computer attempts to draw on the screen is always going to be some election of pixels that have a certain meaning to the human mind  but it's never going to be the physical object itself for example the computer and bachman could have drawn the human figure where in different clothing or something like that and that would be the sort of transformation that  so from the least three dimensional orientation that one gets in both me patent that issue here and involvement to some sort of representation on a flat screen and that's the issue  anybody making anything he heard the classifications into which bachman and the two patterns here were placed on their face for the classes those documents record the examiner case but it essentially says we need classifications the patent issue on the prior art are of some relevance although perhaps secondary relevant to appealed the denial of discovery apart from the arguments that there was real party in interest that is here and as a result the proceeding should be terminated  but suppose somebody inside his position had separately appealed the denial of discovery why would that fall into the review ability bar because after all the result of that would be read and to  if they if we were to agree with us that the discovery denial was wrong to enhance the record which might then we need the board to render a different decision about whether somebody is their relative position on the rigid articulated body for two that is tracked and you detect the posture of the body to be separate for one sensor so in fact you are