data however we believe that is when the board's opinion they did not use the replacement part or that they only used data and in doing so it shows you in this section that were very clear you're claiming are arguing i think that they misapplied their construction i don't think so you don't think there's a difference because there is a difference because deadly difference are we believe that if it was a misapplication we wouldn't be discussing whether or not the two six seven specification the claims of the two six seven patent and claims make it clear that pre determined data is different and separate from and indicators indicators a claimed element in the two six seven patent additionally in of the two six seven found is directed to a data excess in method and that method prevents the hose from receiving garbled codes if you look at the claimed for this language appears it is also a data excessive method and transmitting a single block indicator doesn't prevent the hose from receiving garbled code at all it is not it's a is an indicator of an erase block that is it's not it's not predetermine data doesn't stop the gar problems of between the clear disclosure of the patent which says the invention solves the garbled code problem and the differentiation between this the use of these words in the claims and in the spec we believe that the border error in construing the term cut with that my understanding is that there's no dispute left at least that sharon discloses everything except for the transmitting step predetermining yesterday and so they were left with then and the board at eight ten sites quote from bennett and it is directed and at the end it's is such systems return the erased status and or race data in response to the read up or read operation from a to race flock so is the a race data and then it pre determined data your that's the that's the board's decision and its basis for finding that you just answer my question is the array's data yet present wasn't the subject i don't know your honor that wasn't the subject of the arguments below the board's basis in the the institute grounds here were rely on wasn't the issue i mean the board cited that's the garbled code if you read that section of a block that is the a raised section and you decode it under the guise of sharing what you're going to get is garbled code so you can't eat can't bad but because the claims also require another indicator and they couldn't use the e s p n which is itself an indicator they couldn't use that for the indicator also in the claims because they had changed its function we didn't use the fly made sure they used the fi termed to be for the purposes of mapping replacement it so what we get there is a situation where the ied that there is no function anymore remaining in having the the sharon indicator everything that you're an indicator doesn't borders  speed this can be done by the yes bit so from a technological standpoint it is and as n t p explains it's the height of hindsight for when you're mapping elements to claim to take something which in a real system would have absolutely no function at all because it had been completely replaced and add that in merely for the purposes of mapping the claims and that's the situation this case were some really overlap it's that they have to rely on a completely meaningless form of functionality in the system operation the board in this institution decision agreed that it was replaced with data but declined to say that it was stored before user operation and footnote four of page thirteen of fisons breeze they're not challenging it is the fact that store construction that said the data must be the same size they also never proposed construction is that the garbled code problem must be solved in the host i agree they made those arguments respective application but they did not make a perspective claim construction thus there was nothing to appeal with respect to clean construction we know this from fisons own words it's kind of a response that a five six four they say first the combined system would not practice the pre determine data limitation as to its truth by the board and eight by seven eight which is what the board relied on when its advise on agreed with phase on says in the institution decision the board properly recognize nine the board also founded eighty nine the chairs invention is directing to reducing directed to reducing error rates yet sharon does explicitly say you can set a flag or an indicator to indicate a new block however and as far as the n t p issue goes i don't think this is a situation where we need to network so we're relying on one network from wanted one never from another that was the a t p case here we have the flags on share and share doesn't tell you what to do when you  rationale for why it found that there wasn't teaching a way the sharon reference many times over eight times says that a significant part of bennett part of the patent is to not reduce the size of the data the board in dismissing that argument said that zhorzh in sharon directed you compression and and then you consider that but if you look at the sharon reference there are numerous statements about the need to not reduce the size of the data and have nothing to do with compression and in defending trying to defend the board's judgment like i said the petitioner doesn't argue the same grounds as the board but that they try to argue is that separate distinction that that discussion in inch and sharon about don't shrink the size of the data is somehow only connected to written blocks and not to new blocks and i think that shows that if on the on the merits of looking at at sharon there isn't it there isn't really any evidence to establish that the limitation in the cost of teaching is restricted you just  pressure because it's you so many places and it's such a clear statement of the purpose of the invention is to reduce the size it is not reduce the size of the