five asserted grounds of on passing ability but except that the th because it made to king the stakes and misconstrued the claims by holding that they do not require that a synchronized mobile device always ignore timing deviation information which you would expect in a contention based random access process and that they would need to be resolved somehow but beyond that it was i think at the indication was as fast as forth for further study and it does not provide any means of that point and contends contends that the distinction is crucial and the board's failure to recognize this is it is distinction no we didn't say that because that nobody had suggested that has means actors until the final written decision but the fact that the mobile device in our one was always in synchronous status was a key part of the argument from the beginning possible choices is likely to be successful nor does the claimed electronic circuitry qualify as unpredictable arts and that and i'm quoting them again one way wave pages we point out that they're the samsung the petitioner has made no showing hadn't even mentioned recent reasonable expectation of success and at at appendix page fifty the board and i need some help in trying to understand what the contentions are if i understand correctly you're trying to make a distinction between timing information which causes a change from an as it is the timing information timing deviation information within the meaning of the claim the information that is involved in the car one transmission and no i don't believe i because the timing deviation information in the claims it's but if specifically defined in the claims to be time deviation information included in a random access response and a contention based random access process and that is different than the timing adjustment information that is used in the r one reference among other things pardon me they are one reference is not dealing with a contention based random access process which means that it if using completely different communication channels the r one reference is using dedicated uplink and downlink channels between the base asian and the mobile device where as the patent and the ts thirty six thousand three hundred reference between maintenance timing information and synchronous timing information which i understand is the distinction that you're making and you're saying that correct me if i'm wrong about this that the  about one category and not the other well i i'm not sure that i can add anything to to what i tried to explain a moment ago just like but i will i'll try the claims are talking about  they're talking about devices and synchronous and asynchronous status and they're talking about information and a random access response and contention based random access synchronization process that is different and actually there was never any dispute that that is different than the timing maintenance procedure that our one discusses partly for a mobile device that has already gone through the random ac is it fair to say that the issue that i'm asking about is sort of at the heart of what you're getting at well i think it's i think what that what is at the heart of what we're getting at is that these are very different pardon me that the ts reference does not change the ignoring limitation and in fact the the undisputed expert testimony was that the new mobile device at issue in the ts reference never ignores timing information mobile device can make the decision whether to ignore or apply if needed are one to find the ignoring limitations of this not n g s and probably think that with the one the claims are properly construed and are one is properly right it's not in our want either and so i don't think that the i think it would be overly simplistic because i don't think the board that's not the analysis the board applied the board relied on are want to teach that ignoring limitation and it needed to rely on it because it's nowhere else in the prior art and we don't make it there either but that's that's the mistake the board made i think so what you're saying is that our one teaches ignoring maintenance correction information but doesn't teach ignoring information that essential to synchronicity there well that's fair i would also maybe put it a little bit differently which is that our one teaches our one doesn't teach ignoring based on the synchronous or asynchronous status of the mobile device because the mobile device is always synchronized so it really doesn't teach anything about the mobile device doing anything based on synchronization status and that's really what the claims are all about and that's i think the fundamental misreading of the the board made of the r one reference based on its misreading of matt ascetics testimony really depends on whether there is a material difference between ignoring the maintenance in the introduction of the reference at the very beginning the reference itself makes clear that it's about the transmission of a uplink timing advance to ensure a synchronous operation of the mobile device so the  by explaining that it's you know it's there to ensure the synchronicity and then the key aspect of the reference which is at the bottom of the next page that the board relied on to find out whether the timing advance command is ignored or not depends you agree that there's a difference as mr trail is suggesting between maintenance timing information and timing information that relates to synchronicity it's a slight difference and once you  beginning to be misaligned that if it's not fixed your country will lose the connection and the border effectively concluded that that's also a type of asynchronous status again the reference expressly refers to the timing being incorrect and refers to correcting that  synchronicity includes maintenance information it's yet there is no claim construction site raised over this particular issue but as you get deeper into the references that is  you that you need to make these adjustments to avoid falling into a synchronicity that's the whole purpose of the reference to avoid a situation where you completely lose communication and by teaching that to a person of skill making these maintenance adjustments twenty five from the record that is actually ts thirty six thousand three hundred that means virtually all the limitations of the claims at page twenty the board summed up everything and noted that the only thing that was disputed by weiwei was whether that final ignoring enough and then there's no motivation but the only element that was actually still needed after ts three thousand six hundred a showing but you can make the decision whether to ignore that timing advance cannot have a mobile device and not just at the base station thing but it it seems to me that you're not entirely defending what the board said because if i understand what the board said it is said that they are one match that whatever it decisions and relations about you know about ultimate goal as well everything and while a again didn't contest that it does show almost all of these limits it's just that the last element of and the decision to ignore these commands be made at the mobile device that element this amply shown in the r one reference and in that was missing from ts thirty six primary reference for law he's not correct and describing how much it teaches in fact it's not just a question of whether an ignoring decision can be made at the mobile device the timing advance commands would ever be ignored so it's not just a question of when you where you can you make the decision it's whether what you ever what mobile device ever ignore timing advance information received from a base station that timing advance information timing adjustment information in that case can be ignored and so they needed to do that and as i explained the board misread the r one reference to teach that it applies or ignores based on synchronization status and it doesn't and then i did i think there was a significant choice of words in councils argument when he said the board effectively concluded that what our want is talking about is a and it's not just i think the the argument that well knowing that you need to adjust the timing a little bit would certainly suggest to somebody that if it's the timing is way off you really need to adjust it but that's not actually what the problem here was or what these claims are about but it's not about adjusting it's about knowing when to ignore when it's safe to ignore timing deviation information that was a problem that was under resolved construes the claims too old to cover a situation where timing deviation information can sometimes be ignored and sometimes be applied when i devices in synchronous status is found that are one toss this limitation when the claims are properly construe it does not teach this limitation thirty six thousand three hundred doesn't teach this limitation of the board found and so absent that erroneous claim construction and the further misreading of are one that limitation is not there and so the proposed