thank you your honor and good morning please the court i want to start with why this court should vacate the denials of the motions to amend and because the board erred as a matter of law on its claim construction and its legal conclusions about his the board erred because it equated motion with orientation in the claim construction and in the legal analysis although motion in orientation are mathematically related they're not equivalent mimicking motion does not mimic orientation and if i could show you this is kind of a tough concept to get here so let me walk you through the primary reference and secondary reference of the arguments that parrot was making and what the war primary reference is a joystick controller louvel when you move the joystick on the why because the joystick handle relative to the base didn't change the position didn't change that's why louvel the position based control well that's not the middle exactly so they went t series of three secondary references all of which are early one nine hundred ninety s era mice where you have a controller and you move it around in the air to move it cursor on the screen so i'm moving this cursor on the screen by moving my air miles ok but what both parent and the border at mit is that louvel if you have no action on the control it returns the craft to a flat or normal heading to it makes the craft of still ok likewise for all of these are mice i'm moving my cursor around i'm moving my soft robot around on the screen but if i stop moving the cursor stops the robot stops that's mimicking five in the broadest reasonable interpretation for claiming they construed orientation very broadly so we were faced with a choice what do we do we argued to be our icon structure do we try and cancel these claims which would invoke based controls if i orient motion control or tilted for the craft mimics that motion ok if i hold that controller is doing with that is it's taking that inclination in the soft robot and it's using it to move the robot this sounds like an aural or you or them or i mean you know that's not our job they find the facts of the and you said they the one of your complaints here is that that the board said you can incorporate by reference and therefore everywhere you look at the rest of the record yes on forty two point six a three they are  it is appendix page eighty two the blue brief page forty three we discuss where we made this argument the argument is represented in the decision by the board where they went through are hard enough or is this on the motion for leave to amend yes acknowledged that the motion based controllers were equivalent and we argued ward not in your us and the board did not address ada with respect to the substitute claims below features of floating detection me why does it future floating detection because if the user is holding the controller at a slight angle controller might be thinking that it's moving because there's some sensation on the accelerometer but it's not the controllers being held still it's detecting the force of gravity a little bit and in order not to confuse that with a motion signal sado says put those accelerometers in a floating detection structure so that they never have to worry about not being morion it with respect to gravity and as a result say don't touch the future isn't what we argue it teaches the way because it teaches ignoring graph and that's what was argued to the board below that was addressed by the board with respect to we did discuss the fact that that ficci way talk against the combination of those references because you would not look to motion based control to find a gravitational reference so in the  using this incorporation by reference to say we're not going to set consider the patent on a response is inappropriate i mean that regulation on incorporation by reference relates to expert affidavit it's very specific about what you're not supposed to incorporate by reference and it would seem that refusing to look at the rest of the record is totally inconsistent not only with the products but but with the a p a so assuming that it would o'malley so i don't think we agree i don't think i agree that it's inconsistent with the products you corporation by reference and for simple reason because the institute of claims our fire combination was a different sort of prior review for substantial evidence and hopefully a firm so that's where it would come out of the corporation by reference but also just really want to make clear what's happening here with say you know because it really does feed into the well quite so just major arc so in we actually did raise sado but all this one line it's a second line of page six eighty two in the appendix we're teaching a way is made as part of a laundry list of incorporation by reference to the patent owners respon the board explicitly addressed all of those arguments with respect to the institute of claims and specifically on appendix page thirty eight and thirty nine rejected the teaching away arguments with respect the state of the exact same arguments because all they did in their reply brief on the motion to amend is incorporate the by reference the earlier arguments so what you're saying the earlier arguments only related to institute a playmate if you look at page sixty two of the of the repub the record that's their reply important point for me to discuss your  right so the board is funny in the matter of fact that the tilt feature the inclination feature one of the two is based on gravity and again there's various clear substantial evidence for that need to look no farther than figure for where in the bubble v game if you're as long as you're pushing the joystick to the right whatever you're controlling it's going to move to the right and similarly just like it says it's sensing tilter inclination as long as you're talking it to the right you're going to be moving the controlled object to the right the board found that as a matter of fact relying on this on this portion of of naga mitsu and then in addition to that the board also repeatedly cited the testimony  that motion and orientation are mathematically related to one another their derivatives if you know one you know the other so the this is all based on an artificial distinction between motion the aircraft and then i believe now you're going back to the other limitation which is the gravitational reference imitation so i want to make sure there are distinct is aboard make two separate factual findings both of which are well supported when and with respect to the again going back to your question judge o'malley on the gravitational reference point that is where the board again relied on the disclosure in figure one of the three axis of some rounders with the gravitational reference explicitly noted next to them and relied on also the testimony of q a frozen expert that gravitational reference that's what's referred to in the claim is pardon me  that's exactly right and that fact your phone made no requests for could further constructions of any terms i propose neither the orientation or terms nor the gravitational referenced reference term so unless the court has any additional questions it's right we couldn't cancel the claims so in this i p r we didn't have a chance to do that in fact actually as your honour's opinion in auckland products points out it's impermissible to shift theoretically could apply to original claim eight and turned that into prior art but i would point to judge tykes comment in the last hearing the merely because you could combine the two references doesn't mean that you get to the claimed invention we didn't ask for the claim construction because we made expressly clear that the motion of the craft the motion of the orientation excuse me of the craft mimics the orientation of the control we made that expressly clear by the motion to met the combinations that are proposed do not y