your mr foster yes stretch your trunk please proceed thank you inmate please the court the board wrongly construed the term synchronization signal by narrowly requiring it to comply construction in the district yes what authority do you have for your underlying proposition that if the opinion has affirmed that the broadest reasonable interpretation which is interpretation of local here needs to be at least as broad as the phillips standard which is a political in district court and  is the the standard that the district court klyde here in finding a much broader interpretation and specifically an interpretation that's quite consistent with the interpretation proposed by cisco and quite similar to the construction proposed by the patent owner itself and it's supported with the testimony of their expert which and that is in the in the record appendix the synchronization signal and synchronization frame so the board is correct that the claim requires and recites for a super frame which  and it separately recites receiving a synchronization signal and those are two different things right so those are two different things synchronization frame is one of a chunk of data that  frame would be the th one that's correct and it has a symbol it has something that flags it as the last page in the deck so this be the last card in the deck with the fact that it is the  what signals that it is the last one and the fragrance that yes that the frame away of and compassing data for the frame is a period of time the the data transmitted during the frame is the symbol and that's made distinction and making its petition making its case for obviousness cisco pointed to the synchronization frame of the n c standard as the synchronization frame called for in the claim and it pointed to broad and doesn't identify it referring to the guy i'm just trying to get a handle on the concepts here and the language the synchronization signal is a is a clock signal it's signal that that causes synchronization the the claim itself does not say how the synchronization occurs and that is part of the board's error the board restricted the synchronization signal to the preferred embodiment which uses clocks for synchronization other what else would you what else would you use a signal synchronization signal for other than to synchronize two different transceivers would i agree it could be used to synchronize two different transceivers the problem with the board's construction is that it limited it to synchronizing clocks within that receiver that was the st error but what's going on with that the claim doesn't require clocks there's there's no limitation in the claim requiring that a transmitter or  that you're doing that simply because you don't want to get into the argument about what the references teach and in terms of synchronization frames and it seems to me that there was a different concepts the i'm not sure i entirely understand your question i would point out that the board misunderstood cisco's position and mistakenly believe that cisco was relying on the synchronization frame as being the synchronization signal and that's simply incorrect the signal is within the frame that the the symbol transmitted during the frame that is what cisco identified as the synchronization signal and that was clear in the petition it was made clear again appendix the board in accurately states that the petition relies on the synchronization frame as teaching the synchronization signal and that's the simply incorrect and the board erred in understanding to start of  here as a signal allowing synchronization between clocks and i'm just not i'm not a period of time structure but what you're saying is that synchronization signal within the information transmitted during that last period of time in a super friend and what is it the symbol that makes it a synchronization frame or the fact that it's a sixty nine frame that is if that  yes and the synchronization into interest with the data contained within it all right i believe that is correct so why why are we discussing this symbol because the symbol is what cisco identified as the synchronization signal that is separately recited in the synchronization symbol is what's used to correct for timing errors and that makes it a synchronization si situation are you going to take up a different issue or yeah i'd like to take up a different issue if the discussion that i'd like to make is that  with regard to the full power and that's where the board made this big distinction at the full power mode you receive the synchronization furring which basically defines the structure of the data it's broken down into the sixty nine  period and then the service symbol in that sixty nine dollars yes the symbol is the data that is transmitted during that particular time period and that's the distinction the mr foster was making and that's a distinction that era's agrees with that is that it is and symbol different in character from this symbols that are in any of the other frames in the super friend yes the symbol is a the data signals that it's the end of the super frame or the fact that it's frank number sixty nine with a receiver is looking for frame number sixty nine if the receiver receives a friend number sixty nine and does not receive the s then it knows it's out of synchronisation so the sum bowl has to be received during that particular time period transmitted and received during a particular time period in order for the receive during that time frame in order d for the both sides of the transmitter and the receiver to be in synchronization but i mean not to avoid this issue but what i was trying to do and this is what we tried to do to keep the board from going down the rabbit hole of this is st full power modem was never into speed sacca the court heard this morning the case preceding ours that case involved the very same references that eris raised in eris made the same argument in reply to the alternate claim construction offered by t q delta and the board pointedly refused to consider that portion of the reply and in doing eris in the reply pointed back to the petition they did not raise a new argument the petition basically discussed what was known as frequency synchronisation and frame synchronization eris proposed the construction that the term synchronization signal be construed as a signal allowing frame synchronization the board accepted that in the institution decision and the pat down of response q delta came back and said no no you're focusing on frank's synchronization it really should be construed as only applying to frequency synchronisation in reply eris said we don't agree with that but if the board goes down that road in the docs that construction we want to make it easier for the were to reach a decision our petition shows how the references teach both frequency and friend synchronization and we pointed back to the  showed how the frequency synchronization issue is caught in view of the pilot and that is fat and appendix two thousand three hundred and thirty nine when we described how we've been single in reference response resulted in a change of construction the petitioner pointed back to the petition and said we meet that construction the board refused to consider this court reversal and basically told the board you committed clear error by not considering that reply because it was made in view of the petition and i'd like to reserve d what little time i have  t wonderful thirteen standard as teaching both the claim synchronization frame and the synchronization signal based on this understanding that is proposed construction for synchronization signal as a signal that allows frame the information presented in response and therefore they said well in that case there is something new well what's troubling had all of this taken place in federal court  that what's appropriate is to consider the merits of all aspects of the technology to try and get it right and here we are trying to get it right you say we'll know this is evidence which could change the they set the table based on their petition and those are the ground rules and the board does allow you to respond to does allow a petition to respond in their in their in their reply but the board retains discretion to determine if something crosses the threshold from being just a proper response to something that exceeds the scope of the response in this case the board found that changing the theory of invalidity to include this pilot tone exceeded the scope of the initial it is really to find the right answer using the standard procedure use of litigation and here we have the agency and are opposing yes but but consider a district court case if you want to consider a district court case you have an invalid theory you provide it in military contention it's in your contention charge that's the contention you're stuck with even when you're when they're in the experts on the stand and if the expert tries to rely on a new reference or teaching a front from the from a reference to to bolster as is his or her inability case the other side can object and the judge doesn't let it come in that that's essentially what happened i think it doesn't it doesn't change it doesn't change the argument much much of one of one of the reasons the board found a reason to ask that question is because you base everything following on the presumption that you were so at the end of the day the clock is the heart is the heart of that machine it's what keeps the machine you know going it's the metronome it that drives all the operations but maintaining synchronization means argument and then you respond saying this argument is nothing to do with whether the board or in its construction of synchronization signal and then you say nd whether eris showed the prior teaches the the the the board addressed the board addressed the audience when the petition and i don't believe the board is required to address every argument made once they've shown that the the petition is deficient and the claims frame as teaching both cisco did not reply did not come back with all this evidence in this reply and said no cisco should have clarified novia pointing to two different things they didn't take they did not come back in that apply and pointed out instead and now they  below we stated that the petition establishes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a synchronization symbol in the n c specification is a type of synchronization signal because it is used to maintain timing synchronization with a remote transceiver cisco was very clear st in his petition and even more clear here and its reply that what it was relying on to teach the claim synchronisation signal was the prior arts synchronization symbol and that the allegations that that is a new argument are simply inconsistent with the statement that i just read from the record  pilot tone talk the synchronization said there's really no dispute especially with regard to full power mode and we cited this on our brief that there's all sorts of admissions that full power mode is shown by the a d s l standard period paragraph there's nothing inventive about the full fall and i would just like to point out with regard to the reply and the argument t q delta one of their final arguments faulted cisco for not raising some argument in the re y and said the board was correct in not considering it because it was not in the reply arison did raise an argument in the reply the board did not consider that and d q delta also says that that's correct the war didn't abuse its discretion we submit that this court has squarely held in the real valma case the court said when a patent owner argues for a claim construction in its response a petitioner can and should quote present a case for patentability under that construction when it has the opportunity and its reply the party in that case didn't do it in the reply and the court essentially held that they had their chance and the reply and they didn't address it arest did address it in the reply and the board refused to consider we would also say if the board affirms the seven hundred and ninety nine dollars case then that would also be dispositive of this case because basically that case challenge the same patent on the same grounds the only difference being that that case did not deal with address some of the deep and it claims and eris challenged all the claims one through twenty there was no argument below whatsoever of any