nothing in the specification of eighty's patents limits the scope of the term so a broad interpretation multiplies under the product reasonable interpretation standard the board's construction was not broad enough because it excludes subject matter included in more relevant technical definitions the mcgraw hill dictionary of scientific and technical terms defined that cable trough in the art of cable routing as an enclosed structure so the board's construction that truck must be open is just too narrow to exclude that more  other definitions right then i guess that i just i'm just wondering what basis you found a definition that includes clothes and what else is there i know you point to something a specification that talks about pathway but there's an argument our view is that's just too narrow because cable like the tribes and the art of routing cables can be enclosed so healthy maybe you didn't submit this kind of a definition during the prosecution did you we did not why should we consider something now that it didn't p p o didn't have a chance to consider well as i said the construction of the term was an issue before the board's decision on appeal so there's there was no reason for us to present this definition before they issued their decision on the off so you're not even adopting the definition that you're putting forward right because you're saying it can be enclosed or it doesn't but it doesn't have to be implausible that's not even the definition here standing right that's correct were evidence that the board's construction was too narrow because it excluded a realm of subject matter that should be included in people talk it can be open or closed as far as we're concerned but to find it just one or the other is too narrow if there's only one issue that was decisive and that kind of such an issue was not decisive of the last appeal in fact there were nine issues related to long and whether or not wrong to disclose v clear that that was the sole issue that was terminated and and because it's not clear a rule thirty six order can't be controlled so the properly brought construction is structured capable of routing cables out of section by providing a pathway for the cables to exit the last trump section that's all that the pad say about what the cable is taught that it provides a pathway for the cable to exit the truck section so because the boards construction is legally erroneous it's finding legal but even if you take the boards construction lets say the boards construction is proper long does this go to cabletron in a decision on appeal the board found that long failed to disclose  figure eight of the ten yet on page eight nineteen of the appendix shows the strain reliever fifty four is a ten year including the slot fifty seven the grommets fifty eight and the curve service below the floods all seven which is the line that whole structure is the etc that whole structure both cooperate to hold the cables and relieve the strain as they exit the channel as demonstrated on page forty eight of our principal brief in the fourteen forty two appeal the tennis trainer lever fifty four have the same relative length and width proportions as all of the environments and he sees that ok good would we have to conclude that that your argument with respect to the u five element five to get to ok the cables are laying in the trough below that structure you can see them in cross section as a sort of those cables have to turn up and into the bottom of the funnel shaped part five and then her over the top of the round a gigantic i mean the board found that the the part five was a two so it clearly had an opening in the bottom of the top even according to the board but the cable turned up into the bottom and then out of the top so it's open on the bottom the top it's the only way the cables can travel through it long the board incorrectly determined that it would not have been obvious to replace the ten findings alone are reason enough for a skilled artisan to a found the modification obvious no more is needed the board found that it was an obvious by focusing narrowly on the specific functions of different elements the board found that they believe there was not our business since the function of ten years cable holder was to firmly hold the cables and that function was different from the function of shortened cable gaidar but for obviousness there's no requirement that functions be identical when you're understood your argument your priest to be mean enough that they have it took a to have different functions that the that the board here when it sent the functions or it functions are different it is ok to have different functions but to the extent that the board for this quarter leaves of the function need to be the same we're saying the functions are in fact the same in the end the function is protecting k no i'm just guessing you are giving your brief that the function for that's wrong but the functions don't need to be seen that the functions can't be defined in the bone for that reason i recall that we get our  do it argued that in our patent because the trough defines a pathway then the term trop should be construed to read on any and we have in the past considering definitions of dictionaries and things like that that do not raise a lot so let's assume for the moment that we do consider the dictionary definition what is wrong with the suggestion that this includes of the problems with it is that it's kind of it's confusing you see the two definitions side by side and their move mutually exclusive and so i find their definition somewhat strange and it may lid on time and their definition it's kind of confusing had they brought it at the right with your expert says the definition should include the channel with the removable lid it's it's yes or live in and that's right so if you have a piece of equipment over here and a piece of equipment over here and you connect up the fibers to see that they work and now you want to put them in the trough you grab the intermediate portion and put  late not always but oftentimes that's why i think their definition is a little confusing had they brought it before the board's decision on this we could have vetted that definition and that's why the examiner and the board excluded it channel as it is a three sided structure or a as a board yet they have the advantage of having the rules that we apply which is the broadest reasonable interpretation so they're less constrained right i mean they've got this definition they've got the other definition and they're just saying that the border area cannot apply and the broadest reasonable construction under those circumstances when you combine all of that why is that wrong i don't think it's reasonable because had they brought that at the right time we could have come in with with expert testimony saying no that's not what that's talking about your view of that definition is it must be a to pander what our view is it's an open channel differently than you what is the i think it's a lifetime and as it relates to the working of this invention the common dictionary definition and which says you know the characteristic structure and shape of a trial you know the letters doing a dictionary definition that doesn't seem like a very useful expressive name but it's consistent it's consistent with what the spec discloses as well they would have come in and said now and close has to be referring to these removable lids that can be placed on top and why would they think they would say that because in the context of cable routing systems that's what you would do you would not be reading fibers through to i mean if it was a hundred foot two you have to fish it through this and always through the other end in the river in this context if that doesn't happen foot it would certainly be easier the shorter gets but you still have to get it back to the end and if those ends are connected to equipment you have to disconnect elves is there anything with respect to how hide i don't know that your honor i don't know that it's possible that it could it could well be but we're not talking we're talking about tropical systems or central data centers it's a resize the word channel which is open why would it the channel of the tribe why would they have to say and close it even suggest that you're having a removal it and that's what our expert would have said and we would have vetted it out at the appropriate time that's why the examiner and the board rejected it was inconsistent with their definition to versus an open channel the mutually exclusive definitions of the more reasonable one was the boards and they the board found that long did not have the upper surface and what pan would relied on in its early briefing with were these drawings that were pulled together by attorneys without any expert testimony that it's an upper surface and their drawings are inconsistent with what long shelves and that's why it was rejected so let me turn to of all the rejections of claims one and thirty six of the by four pound and regarding its lateral prop the board found that the term lateral does not restrict the direction in which the prop must run and therefore  you just move it around and waited for it it doesn't because it's what you know the board's construction effectively removes that term and if you look to the real world reasons that rap talks lateral property is on trough and this also ignores the guidance provided by the inventors in the specification which they they said that the lateral trough in the lateral onto the ground which reinforces that lateral has meaning you can't just extend in any direction and that lateral means wars on the parallel to the ground the claims as well if you look at the claims they reinforce that lateral if it's if you're at ninety it's not if you have forty five it's not it's a lateral and that's the context in which the inventors were dressing creating a transitioning device for going out of the lateral trough mind that whatever interpretation is taken in it cannot be reasonable if it's inconsistent with the specification and that specification would be interpreted by once the skill in the art and here the only person of skill in the art to testify you know in this line you don't even have the words for a written description sense generally horizontal not generally parallel correct that was my mistake if someone wants to point to the places in the written description don't you think support th so these only makes sense if lateral means generally horizontal or parallel to the ground and it's consistent with all the testimony that that rather give he explains in the real world there's there's a significant distinction between a lateral trough and a vertical trough and so lateral is construed to mean generally  upstanding side wall of a lateral trough and to be clear this is a significant difference when we have real world testimony from one skill in the art that goes into great detail and at paragraphs five through he may not but he does go on in detail and talk about the distinction between lateral problems and vertical props and as well he said in paragraph fourteen that the person designing the exit trough or transitioning cables out of lateral process would not simply take ideas from structures use invertible troughs and he says quote the tool environments present different complications that require different design approaches and he goes on to explain that what the inventors did in this context was counterintuitive any stage in paragraph fifteen that quote despite the reasons that would have suggested that the invention of the express as a truss would have been desired by customers the exact opposite is true and he continues with saying that the a d c expressed edge atrocity become critical  definition demonstrating the breadth of the term as soon as we possibly could on reexamination the examiner was of the mind that all of the references disclosed a cable access problem so whether that was in the yard or not was not in question when the  we were denied that opportunity this is the first opportunity we've had to address the board's construction regarding the wrap declaration you know what rats have an effect variation is basically he's talking about the commercial environment of their invention and why it's great and why they came up with it it doesn't say anything about how terms would be broadly construed under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard and it doesn't say anything about device or phones in the rest of their claim it focuses strictly on the advantages of  commercial environment returning to talking about the lateral trial section construction of lateral means of or pertaining to the side it doesn't have to be horizontal and as judge post pointed other other trusts other than the one described and so with the full balance of the specification nothing says it has to be horizontal and particularly for the claims that are just to the cable x a child does that mean that if you arrange them on the shelf vertically in the store they don't infringe but the ones that are sitting on their side are infringing products it's an it's an unworkable construction overtime you side means it has something to do with deciding staver the flames runs down the side of the cabinet ruling by the the board that it restricts the directions but the board said quote the term lateral quote does not restrict the direction in which the truck must run and therefore