is to get the fundamental error by the board in the reexamination of them that was patents brought by petitioner smart modular was insistence on the corporation and the use of the claim construction on the meaning to and from have no meaning in that they have a meaning in that the predefined value stored within the controller are data the claims require the generation of signals the data may be stored within the controller and from that data or from what is in that storage the signal is generated but the data is not a signal the controller is a box i've looked at this closely and i want you to tell me why we should not consider this argument way and in doing that only a show me in the record where you raised this claim construction are you in front of the p tab smart previously raise a proposed construction of i went through all this and i consider a very strong very good reason i said i went through all this i considered a strong argument but i want you to tell me why it isn't what we have an all in the quote or they may be defaulted to they explain the predefined guides are stored in memory and manufacture a prior operation and control module generates output signals from these values during testing as precisely the argument we also have appendix one four two two one   two for appendix one for two and one for three not one for two and we have first configured to provide memory signals address data address and control si i'm afraid i have the version that is extracted and the signal dated distinction attendants three four six four that as an opportunity to show that the arguments have been raised below and that it had been raised there's a basis and they're being explained in the rehearing and those arguments are not rejected or denied or excluded in the rehear so when they had support in the original briefing the original arguments when they are raised in the rehearing they are raise using single words generating must include creating a signal from one turtle to the circuit not signal he said that again i mean it's baffled me about your argument in this entire case is that you dispute the for construction of generate but i find no clear construction you provided to us just beyond saying you should come up with something that includes this disputed  if there are actually three possible embodiments one you just give me what you think the claim construction is and show me where you argue that to us clearly yes the claim construction should be the generate is creating the signal for transmission not data but the signal either by an algorithm which generates the data on the fly from which the signals generated and transmitted or where  from values that are recorded in a memory and the signal is then generated in transmitted from the controller and i hesitate to say this where did you argue that a low in the record are you just going to refer me to the did not include intrinsic evidence of the predefined bias and was raised to the board the war only addressed this intrinsic evidence by looking at the board said that it had included that environment it added an additional limitation a limitation that was not in the specification that if a device outside the for what ever stored those values in the controller then that was not within the scope of the claim judge clement's read that at some point many factures it's possible to store it there and so therefore the proper interpretation initiate transmission and causing initiating so the entire case for smart was premised on a construction of generate as meaning cause or costs initiate that's what they base their case on  and looking at these these sites and putting what counsel just pointed out doesn't change that and so they think specifically came to the board and they said that in the petition this language with respect  you fall to two predefined values supported the construction of generate as cause and we just saw that we just saw there right and appendix one for two in that they double down on that because on the reply they argue that up a construction of generate as produce cannot account for predefined values that are already exist and are not generated in other words this language are pointing to now as support for their their position on produce was one hundred eighty degrees different from what they informative but it's informative rather the proposition that a waiver that the basic requirement of bought it in the doctrine of waiver or the courts is that the parties develop their positions at trial or in this case below before the board and the court went on to say the argument should not and so we therefore submit that the argue that was waived and that is no you can't bring that for the here for the first time and then turning to the board's claim construction the board's claim construction as well reasoned that  generate means produce not cause or cause to produce and smart doesn't take a position on appeal with respect to cause they've abandoned that and so is the other petitioners nobody's nobody maintains that generation has caused and the well let me take it to appendix one forty seven and one forty seven is what they did argue to the board and there they said this controller for of average for four to represent circuitry of a control module that provides the set address and command underscore r e q signals as opcode so i pointed to the op code they didn't argue that there was a distinction between signals an opcode for the the asserted distinction as i said was never developed with expert testimony but if you take it and you look at it fresh you're on appeal you can do a word search for the word command in average and you'll see that everybody talks about communicating commands he doesn't talk about communicating signals he doesn't have raise a distinction between data and signal or command and signal he talks about communicating commands and a few if i could take it to appendix five seven eight one so they pointed to the data all along to the board they didn't raise a distinction between between data and signal so that's an afterthought argument based on the dissent and it's also an incorrect argument it's not raised by the dissent because it's inconsistent with the board's claim construction the board said that nearly every tree even a signal generated externally and then providing it without modification or transformation does not satisf generate and so the dissent took the view that that claim construction was right but that you could have this retrieving mere retrieving without transformation somehow satisfy the claim construction so that the whole position raised by th dissent it doesn't hold water it's inconsistent with the board's claim construction now i want to make a point on this this a theory further with respect to retrieval of the opcode  and passed to the sequencer you have it your one best controller you retrieve it and you pass it and that's that's not generating and it doesn't remotely satisfy they claim construction and there's no dispute there's no di existing value stored in memory that was their position they wanted to create and the specification doesn't support it and the fact that they had to rewrite to a from makes plain that the specification doesn't support it and i think it's should be well understood that two  not mean from two means the opposite of from the specification does not say that you have a preexisting or pre defined values that are sitting there the specification says that you can use any manner of generating the data values and any of that any manner consistent and it goes on to say that you can generate by program and if you generate by programming this means that the values do not already exist as stored data because you generated them and that's the concept of the invention you're generating producing these these signals and data and they're not really pulled off of memory and and  reply from smart on this point they varied it in a footnote for in their reply and the only response that they said is well doesn't matter be it to or from the key phrases pre from and we submit that it very much does matter those words are the opposite of each other and they're trying to create a story that pretty defined values means preexisting value stored in memory but it's not supported by the defined values with the citations to the specification an argument from council we've heard about data received but the claims require signals to be generated signals are generated signals are transmitted as what the claim i it has to include creating a signal where the data in the problem with the trouble here is that it assumes a result  the physical item that is transmitted lettermen x signal data is information it is not the signal those are two different things and we've been very clear agree those are two separate things the signals generated and my