at nine minutes the tone is going to chime and i'll let you know in case you're deep into answering a question don't notice it but any time after that you're going to be eating up your rebuttal time  stoddart you know that you've got that fifteen minutes you can do with it as you as you please but at the end of the fifteen when that tone chime somebody is going to have to wrap talk ok ok ok i have a few questions given the short amount of time that you have a lot yourself i want to get going on on page seventeen of the red brief apple quote there is no implicit or explicit requirement glitches be limited to accurate motion sensor data do you agree this is a yes or no do you agree with that assertion know so since you said no where in the pet does it explosively or endlessly require glitches be limited to accurate motion sensor data give me the language it doesn't explicitly say but as as your honor is probably where the cable doesn't require an explicit definition like fog if you didn't call it something with it that's in something like the trustees of columbia university  in column one line sixty one to sixty three it talks about whether the device is woken up from the state if the motion data loss points to the motion being real as opposed as opposed to mere jostle or glitch again the qualification real is showing that everything that's being discussed in that is relating to motion so it's things that are accurate if things that are they thinking that are actually there that as opposed to something that's beyond the range of the operational range of the sensor on page pages thirteen dollars to seventeen dollars and the blue brief all without citing any legal authority in air do you have any legal authority for that it seems to me as just your attorney argument i think the legal error is what i referred to earlier this is what the board said i think you're referring to is not this is on appendix  none of the passages the pattern or cites actually refers they use that word to jostle but motion data as a glitch the legal error your honor is that they were looking for an explicit statement saying  providing a legal standard you assert the board misconstrued the scope of substitute claim twenty three however in finding that passionately in fab you teach a power logic to move the device from the inactive state to an active state upon detection of a change in the dominant axis which is the axis experiencing the largest effect of gravity isn't that a claim constructed our claim construction or it is your honor and that's what we're saying but in the application they ended up doing construction which we are now disputing ok let me just try eleven shot at that in the green brief on page forty seven the p t o says that your quote claim construction argument for a change in the dominant axis was not clearly articulated before the board show me in the record where you clearly and specifically correcting logic to thirty five further may be used to discard non human motions ok i've lost all of it all feels really right in line with the ordinary meaning of glitch honor if i could respond i'll try to just briefly respond but the the the in all of those is this is your honor referred to there talking about a special circumstance where there are multiple glitches multiple sensing of movement being outside the normal range and then you know if for instance like if you were to have one sense of being outside the normal range like the device gets dropped from the data and it goes something outside the normal range of a human picking it up if you had that would be something that just one glitch what you're talking about here is multiple glitches you get like twenty glitches in one second twenty instances where you're thinking the thing is being dropped then it might be indicated of a sensor malfunction but that doesn't mean it's something that that i don't read that i mean i read that and read the word malfunctioning i read that if you look at if you look at respectfully if you look at the the best the paragraph that you're referring to such is like column three lines twenty eight to thirty six is talking about where there are multiple glitches malfunction it's not talking about one glitch that's a special circumstance where there are multiple glitches for the i will try to reserve the remainder of my time for a bottle at this point construction are at column three lines thirteen to sixteen and column six lines thirty five to thirty eight there and other multiple passages as already been pointed out by judge ch and by counsel for apple support that construction and there's simply nothing in the claim language for that contains the term glitches to limit that term to something less than was fully described in disclosed in the specification the sole issue in the one thousand eight hundred and one dollars appeal is the construction of the claim limitation a change in the dominant axis as found in proposed amended claim twenty three dollars has already been raised in questioning by judge while the we do not the government does not believe that this argument was adequately raised or preserved before the board in even if it were simply directly counter to the disclosure of the specification that appendix page seventy four column for starting a line twelve and going to line twenty four is the passage that directly contradicts the construction that uniloc advocates here in the preceding portion of the bottom of column three starting at line thirty eight and going to the top of the column for  forty six patent describes a number of different ways that accelerations may be tracked and used to assign a dominant axis then moving to the passage i referred to beginning at column for line twelve  six sorry the six hundred and forty six patent discloses that if the prior and current dominant axes are the same the computation logic to fifty five determines if the long average has changed by more than a pre determined threshold embodiment when the change in the dominant axis there we have the very precise limitation that as that issue here is larger than the threshold value the computation logic to fifty five communicates with the power logic to sixty five and the device state logic to seventy to power up the device and restore the last active state if the change in the dominant axis that's the same claim limitation again is not larger than the threshold value the device is maintained in the idle state again that entire portion of the specification is premised on the fact that the current and prior dominant axes are identical and with that condition  place described a change in the magnitude of acceleration along the same dominant axis as a change in the dominant axis as claimed and this is also consistent with the discussion of figure five in the specification but your five is a flowchart for determining whether to wake up a device from an idle state figure five is described in appendix seventy five dollars in figure five itself appears on appendix page seventy five shows that if either the direction of the dominant axis has changed at block by thirty five dollars or if the axis remains the same and the magnitude of excel aeration along that axis exceeds a threshold at to a claim term that has been described more broadly in the specification the board correctly construed a change in the dominant axis to allow a change in magnitude of acceleration along the same dominant axis or a change to the direction of the dominant axis because uniloc only arguments for open overturning the board decisions turn on improper claim construction arguments we respectfully request that the court affirm the board's decision axis reciting changes the dominant asked itself and there's no doubt that the claim lends itself need to change the act because the claim language starts starting with the which language which the is the axis experiencing largest effect that's discussed the blue brief page seventeen where we cite the appendix mr quintile does before you run out of time i think you need to answer for a claim seven because if we just assume for the moment that we need to construe this term a change in the dominant axis consistently throughout all of the claims and we see dependent claim defining a change in dominant axis in a particular way to include  difference is is the director is arguing that claim seven is resetting a genus species relationship so they're arguing that we're in the change of the dominant axis comprises and then therefore the change in that there is a change in acceleration along is kind of a subset of that we think properly what red is saying not saying that it's saying we're in the change in the dominant comprises so we already have a change in the axis itself and then there's also coincident with so that's our that's our i think that's that's probably puts a finer point on where the dispute is there ok let me just turn to so again there are two different