good morning may please the court old wall is not a set of stairs and a wall is not a pergola yet under the board's construction of the term reflecting walls both of those structures would qualify  fizzing consistent with the plain in ordinary meaning of a wall that we all understand to do astley board for construction we did during the oral argument we made it very clear that we were asking for a construction and that the arguments raised by petitioner were inconsistent with the plain ordinary understanding of the word reflecting wall to wall what i have from j orteig sixty two so maybe there's another slight not looking  we argued in and we may not have put a heading in our patent in response we dispute the claim construction of the board but that's not required into this court's precedent to challenge a claim construction we challenge the application of the or we challenge that construction and in the application of the art on to the claims in argued that the prior art did not disclose a reflecting  the oral hearing we said plain in ordinary meaning but we didn't have an opportunity to really spell out our construction and we requested additional briefing before the board at the oral hearing and that was that ended up getting denied but look our arguments on appeal are absolutely consistent with our arguments below and that's really what's required under this court's precedent to preserve an issue t purely legal issue this is one where the briefing looks sony was on notice that we challenge the construction they admitted in their reply brief below that we were challenging the board's construction so this is like a notice issue of a new we are challenging it and they and they in fact had a whole section their briefs saying the board's construction is correct collabos not applying it right and then we made it clear the oral hearing yes so he got it right we are challenging the construction so just because we didn't propose a particular construction just because we didn't put it in a heading that's not waiver and this court found in the entertainer case in nearly exact circumstance as for the war the pat owner even said as we unfortunately did below it suggested that we were applying the board's construction in the patent owners response even where that happened and the construction ended up being absolutely not what that statement is and that is unfortunate while it's unfortunate it contradicts what we actually argued later on in the patent in response within our arguments distinguishing the prior art and in fact in look that the board's construction was overbroad so we said right there is constructions overbroad we might not have said that in bold responses but i'm not sure why i think there was some mix up but we certainly made the same arguments about the prior art not pointing to a cup shaped structure disclosed in a prior art reference called ave this cup that shape structure doesn't have an upper base cross section of a cup only has three sides and under the board's own definition patents no that's right and their expert never a pine that a person of ordinary skill me are would have filled that in and seen a trap as a way to all shape their it expert merely just as they did in their petition say aha that's a trap this void they drew this picture over it what you know the picture is not evidence what is evidence is what is in a and abita doesn't teach that that is a trap is ojt at all and the same substance our argument and it needs to be consistent material you can have different materials that make up this reflecting wall and have a feeling like you see in figure five however the filling in this cup in our bag is not the same as this filling that's disclosed here this filling the ciscos of figure five is going to be a reflective material that's like the outside it will it at the very least it forms an upper base to meet even if it's not reflective it's going to form an upper base of mean i know that to my point about just looking at fifty eight and telling me i thought your answer to me was chris filling is not what's on the outside as well and that's why our baby isn't comparable to because it's not that our way is distinguishable because it's made of multiple materials that's not the issue the issue is that there's no teaching in our bay that a person of ordinary skull merit would consider that particular why isn't that enough for a couple analysis of the trap as well if you had the same feeling in five h on the inside and the outside i would say that's that's not a trap is a little reflecting wall you've got basically we're talking about a metal structure here a reflecting wall that may be made of different materials but it's all a reflective wall and in ave we have a cup with a clear insulator show me where are you in line twenty good morning me please the court of st brutally briefly just addressed the claim construction waiver and then spend the majority of the time on travel so it's just on the we both parties agree that it's abuse of discretion that's the standard of review because the board below made an express finding that the new claim construction challenge was brought to late and that's on page drapery from page fourteen and on that very same page of the gray brief they also acknowledge that they are not challenging the board's denial of additional briefing post hearing where presumably calabro would have introduced its claim construction for the st time because at the at the world hearing they that's halfway through their brief or they have addressed that for the st time but just not just to just quickly distinguish legally the cases cited in the in the great brief those cases involve this court in the st instance applying its own prudential appellate waiver rule whereas here we have the agency's mandatory rule that applies unless the board waves it under rule thirty seven dollars c f r or forty three dollars b as this court explained preserve the though the abuse of discretion and the question is was the did the did the board commit an abuse of discretion by not allowing   the trap is weights of if i may so i on appeal we argued that they were raising new arguments about the level of perfection of this structure of the trap was annoyed this has the reflecting compassion you've got add those yellow wall yellow walls come with abi you are lost there's no question about that the question is are formed by being surrounded by the dot dot dot lower faces eighty nine of the nd shielding film and the upper extended portions ninety two or ninety three where the inlet is narrowed by the upper extended portions entering in the cup region very well could be bouncing off as well from the top from that top insulating film or it could be also a portion going down all the way to the cup and balancing out that's different from using t o material well our i get our position on appeal is that and then as well as a blow that the it's the entire structure as the board found on  one of ordinary skill but i've been motivated to use abbate stretches zoid all reflecting walls because the slanted walls would direct a larger percentage of incident re angles towards the photodiode providing the advantage of increased light collecting efficiency one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use obvious trap as a little reflecting walls because the slanted surfaces would have directed a larger percentage of the incident rate ingles toward the photodiode providing the advantage of increased like collecting efficiency and it's the citing petition page fifty five dollars which goes on about the individually slanted angles of the reflecting walls we don't say substitute let's let's destroy the talk to collection for making those four walls of the primary reference is slanted as about the two the tips and the crooked the supposedly crooked little sides on on the edges that was not their argument below their argument below which it is made clear in the asking because it's a cop it's not a trap as a way to answer that's right question there is no other reasons that that's what we have to consider answer i think that's correct that's the only consideration necessary in our view it was not now this perfect four sided it was not this argument that the raising on page fifty four of the blue brief with these red structures with the tops pointing out that was not the argument below had they just have a few follow up points with respect to the waiver issue we he's correct we did go ahead and propose a construction for reflecting walls in our brief that construction is consistent with our arguments that we made in the p response this court doesn't need to agree with our particular construction in order for us to win because the board's construction is pleasingly braun it is overbroad the board consider open a wall to be any vertical surface i think anyone would agree that's just an overbroad construction and it's not an abuse of discretion issue here in this or this court reviews claim construction  that my colleague pointed to shows that a person of any skill in the earth would do that even so my colleague also referenced the board's claim construction or the board's claim construction we disagree with it but at the very six can't just be a transparent you know water and the top of the well i think does perform a function of sending the light either blocking the light or reflecting it back out to prevent the color mixing i see i'm out of time if you have any further questions here to answer thank you thank you