and the board determines only that there is a difference between arithmetic operators and logical operators but that's true and undisputed but also not that the relevant question doesn't get you to the conclusion because the difference is only the logical operators or the basic building blocks that can be combined in various ways one way they can be combined as arithmetic operators so it's true that logical operators are not necessarily earth medic but it's not true in the opposite direction arithmetic operators necessarily until the use of logical operat know you're a logical operator in a totally different sense obviously we're talking about a digital computers work not out people's brains work is it your position that  but so why it's not inherently just the question is how personal skills are it would understand the express disclosure what happen know two to thirteen ten and eighteen sixteen to seventeen but the other thing about dictionaries or talk about four doesn't run both ways it's true that the logical operators not a surly arithmetic we by definition logic operates to do other things but arithmetic o these logical operators and that's pending pages this tax are kind of pages thirteen zero to ten and it's from sixteen to seventeen i also didn't know that there was really a dispute on that in other words i think their argument as i understood it was it can be any other way that's absolutely right its basic principle digital computing is that you're going to be using logical operators if you are manipulating binary doubt at the below the cliff instruction which is why we have to be right and i think  exact same off gunning equation quote relied on logical operators to perform the accused blending operation that's their position for purposes with frenchmen that they're repeating in this court and it's the exact same off of lending equation that's at issue here and at a minimum remand for the of additional considerations if there were is there but an alpha by we don't frankly see a need for a man because an alpha blending in the record is what it is the facts all line up in the same way and a point is just that combinations of logical operators question here raised by google is whether or not arithmetic operation i don't dispute often when doing arithmetic operation is that a logical operation or doesn't include logical operations correct is it does does it meet the limitation that you cited of doing when doing using a logical operation using logical operators page twenty four of the board's opinion appendix twenty four the board had all of the testimony from both experts it was actually hurts that the building blocks theory the building blocks theory doesn't answer the question does they use bits and bytes but arithmetic operators do not manipulate bits at the byte every level then they manipulate bytes possibly larger groups of bits but they don't manipulate bits the advantage of you they utilize that level of not utilized before do they manipulate the board says we look at all the evidence we look at all the arguments we agree with pat enough we determine that petitioners arguments do not provide us linear equation uses operators that manipulate binary values at the bit level consistent with our construction of logical operators which is not in dispute the affability equation unquestionably involves arithmetic operations computer your honor yes there will be bits used but they're not being manipulated at the bit level that's exactly what the board found that's a factual finding that is supported by substantial evidence there is no evidence in this record disagreed is because the description if you if you look at go the description of the look up table is very gentle there's no description of how a look at a table works out google says well it's going to be using logical operators that isn't true a look table takes at input another input to the output it can be one green gives you apple that's what a look up table does it doesn't necessarily use logical operators it's basically give you one parameter plus another parameter gives you an answer that's what look at a table does it's not there is you're taking an input and you're saying if you get this him put and you have the second input what's the answer it doesn't have to be arithmetic it doesn't really logical it's just giving you give you the output from two given input or three given inputs or whatever premise you have to put the not you're not necessarily using math you know is worth protecting not using logic binary it's just another way for a computer to manipulate numbers to manipulate values it's not it's not it's not it it's not a using logical operators it's not using it doesn't have to use any of those the question here for go is does it dissipate does it disclose to me what else other than logical or arithmetic in the record you could use well we have we have the table manual mismanages the middle manual is what this is the silicon graphics manual that this was this path was based on and you see you have categories of operators you have arithmetic you have logical you have data transfer you have conditional branch and conditional jump and i represent that's that's all there are but there are many different types of operators that people have still only art would understand what they mean and so when you claim a logical providing their opinion about what you see the claimant says using a logical operator what does that mean a personal skill the art and i would it means to be or to a layperson or even to this panel but what does it mean a person stealing are the evidence is it means something different than arithmet and it gives the claim meaning if you say well these are all logical they all manipulate bits at some level the neckline imitation has no meaning and it should not it means that the drafter put in language that had zero consequence of the board nilly come up with this construction it's own it's a construction that the parties agreed to and the board analyzed all the evidence including these documents we have here the expert testimony and they said they look very different a person column thirteen this is this is appendix one twenty your limitation a towards the the bottom of a it says the variable picture control causing pixels selected the form the representation of at least one key ok so you have pixels that are still acted to form a key activated at the same time simultaneously with pixels selected to form the main image by simultaneously means instead of like the priority alternate one of the other you're saying you take a key pixel and you activate that at the same time as you activate a background image pixel so you activate those both at the same time and what they're doing  control allows individual pixels to be dedicated simultaneously to both the main image and the recitation of least one that's when doing that's a different concept that's the idea of saying you take one pixel and you have a objections so i believe that boilerplate well i think i think what i think what they're saying here is your honor is that that they didn't they did not decide the motions to exclude because whatever what they were able to read reach your decision without relying without relying on to say well to the extent that that there is a dispute we won't rely on that specific evidence but this isn't the only piece of evidence this is just one piece of evidence that the board had in order to evaluate again not what we think is different between a between arithmetic and and and logical what a person of skill only are would understand and when the claim is directed to a person of skill in the art the board looked at the evidence and said there are different operations i credit board i'm not sure about life i can address that and you can answer the questions i've got to go back and look at look at the decision i think i believe you can look at it because i believe it was in the record and was excluded i think you can look at the board's decision  whether or not they considered it or not it was part of the record there are other pieces of evidence that were part of the record that the board looked at and said there's a difference between arithmetic and logical operations is there substantial evidence to support the board's decision that regard yes there in terms of the evidence not be considered an absolute minimum the reason decision making requirements of the minister procedures act require the board to identify the you know to find facts notify the basis for this fact findings and also draw the connection between the facts found in the ultimate conclusion and so when it says it's not relying on something and quite rightly so that's not a basis for upholding the the agency's decision the question is to the agency or to kill it you know legitimate basis for the facts found and the ultimate conclusion and this is a key point running through this that this is not really properly before you their point that the arithmetic does not operate at the level i mean that table disapproves of the table says the multiplication in two different columns there describes most patient over comments as describes a decision as again in bits and bits out and so that the record shows that arithmetic does operate at the level but even if it did not even for talking about general higher level was fraction the key point is as i mentioned before the specifications bruskly sadness that watchful operations quote can be combined the risk you have combinations of logical operators and the claim language certainly doesn't preclude that in any sense there are their main argument early is the only argument there are there other human seems to be the work under our view the logical operators limitation is not really add much because by definition digital computers manipulate data with logical operators and therefore we giving meaning to this claim when it the answer is yes because logical operators do have to be used but it does not the case that every word in a clam house to have particularly a incremental importance was stuck to the overall claim scope and the important thing to remember here is looking back at the prosecution history this language came in when they were amending multiple independent claims to add the requirement that there be a capability for individual pixels to be blended that was the patent of the sanction the capability for individual pixels to be blended when they added that to three different dependent claims that phrase it differently in every one of them this is the only one that uses the phrase logical operators that's not there was not the thrust of you and that meant you could just as easily have you know means for one thing which by the way is one of the other independent claims and simultaneously amended basically and also everyone agrees that both of these are relevant part of our efforts as the school is one of deciles so the whole action seems to be on whether the final composite image has to contain some unwanted pixels which is what they call selected pixels wrong for a couple reasons first of all the claims require is what the pleasure choir's that pixels were selected to form the one image the pixels we selected form the other image and that there then combined in the composite image that doesn't mean that the same pixel has to be selected for only one image or the other excellence that's your spot on one of the two disclosed in body mounts so there's no requirement that the old of that ultimately you have any unwanted texas also the way they're trying to get there is by saying that selected means selected for only one and not the other essentially certainly not the ordinary meaning of selected just chosen not necessarily chosen for only one or the other and it's essentially an preserved claim struction argument because there's certainly no claim construction with selective takes that extremely unusual meaning to form the representation of at least one key you're selecting pixels to do while to form the representation of a key in what is it in this composite image so there's that representation of a key in a positive image with the ability to select thank you