for two thousand and eleven fifteen sixteen teams good morning or are made to please the court this appeal presents three issues the parties are in agreement on the third one which is the need for three mand on the official notice and i played with russ these two issues in order first there's the question of whether the centers of the added invention may reasonably include external cables or wires second there's the question of whether the claim the process further and quite candidly we thought the bill clinton language as well as the specification was already clear and so we have taken this up through the board process into this court now so that we can hopefully have this resolved and get to th we get to the business of the litigation that's been on hold for about six years now speaking of getting this resolved if in fact and were to agree with you construction on the what is the promise reasonable construction don't we still need to be the first instance i think was because of the making of a small discrete sensor that was not going to impede basic human activities so if that indeed does happen we'll certainly do our level best with this is fast describing the inadequacies of the product one would think that if there was wired to be within the scope of this invention you'd see it fairly prominently displayed throughout the specifications here here you not only don't see that but what you see describ the specifications are directly tied to the wiring for the contents and so coming back to the broadest reasonable construction it's not to say that that gives the ford license to adopt any construction certainly in race to tone and rate bigger use cases where this court found error and found that the construction well brought in was not reasonable that's what we've got here is what i'd like to do is comment on this issue just a little bit about the case law and the different case law that if you accept the patent offices claim construction with respect to sensor i'm not sure that we've offered an argument or with that you include wires on the true we've offered an argument here that you should reverse it in the in the in the presence of those cables and wires so i'm afraid we would and that's exactly why we're here but if i can just turn back to the table off for a moment because i think this court not only has to decide this case that write an opinion that makes some sense and if you take those cases that meeting the abstract the specification they're in there's no contrary point to that when you adopt a narrower construction whether it's here and i think we have an anchor in the claim language itself when you see what the board of the director of argued against us they've specification that doesn't mean that you adopt a narrow instruction just because of that so i think you can make sense of all of these cases in the same way the judge brogdon before the court made sense of a lot of the reasons i'm going to be there with the why isn't the cables when you get to means mostly that's that's what it means in the context of these claims that's what it would nearly mean dictionary definitions and it's certainly what it means when you look to the specifications support for this amendment to the plane if you look to a column thirty two  control unit is described as holding the sensor in place now what's happened in the board's decision as we've argued in our brief is that the board wind from substantially fixed and the understanding that we share even say that was substantially fits the board said that was somewhat restrained and those are the contrary expressions and i think they're absolutely contrary expressions jugglery i think in fact to again a fairly despite not being a dog unlike the future yuri unit where the you have a cable which is sort of like that change it's somewhat restrained i think we have to agree that that's somewhat restricted but it is not substantially fixed and it's not substantially fixed by the sensor unit holding  may please the court the board reasonably construe the term censor as it's broadly resided in the claim if you look at the claim language which is in the inside cover of our read read you'll see there that the term censor is cables and the specification explicitly disparages the use of wires and cables in the sensor so why is it reasonable i'm not i'm not getting why it's reasonable for the board to construe well for a couple of reasons you are first when you look at the claim language itself it's written very broadly that does not exclude cables and wires if abbott intended for the sensor to exclude cables or wires that could have said so  usually new clues no additional cables so they're they're capable of saying one or the other bad but they when they wanted to say that and there was something involving a cable they said it  honor that's correct the fact that they did disclaim cables and wires with respect to the sense of controlling it shows that they know how to disclaim certain terms and when it also shows they know how to say if we might  ever have a cable or a wire we're going to say well usually not but it's possible that they don't and then that's completely correct and we think that that is their problem when you look at the background information that does like sure because they actually define the term sensor in their specifications and they did so broadly they defined it as a device that's used to be tagged and or measured glucose levels they did not define it in such a way that clearly disavow cables and wires in their definition they did judge pros indicate in the background section that sensors can include cables or wires and it's undisputed that that is the ordinary meaning of  a reexamination and the whole purpose of the broadest reasonable interpretation and a real example nation is to allow the patentee to clarify his claims how by amending those claims and they had the opportunity to do so but they didn't do so here they amended their claims of various ways but they didn't amend their sense or term for clarity purposes and they say that because of the disparaging remarks  that their background section does say that censors hinder the concini and movement of a patient but the background section also says that there are bulky devices that were present at that particular time and there were certain devices that had sensor systems that had long cables that connected the sensor to these huge bulky sensor control units that had cable connected to large an mainframe computers and american academy they disagreed with that board interpretation they thought that the disparaging remarks in the background section in some way limited the determine use a computer word reasonable being in him and your opposing counsel tend emphasizing that word because when you read what they describe as a problem they're kind resolved and then you  wires with then thirteen which is the sensor children and i'm sorry which is the sensor you see the the wires and figured three there are forty four and forty three are the two disputed while he certainly do claim invention well it is it might not look like a drama but it definitely teaches the claimed invention opposing counsel has characterized just sorry as external cables but when you look at figure three there you see that forty three and forty four four are connected with the end of the cable within the device there itself it's not external to the table to sensor at all it's actually connected with then figure three which does the sensor there are a number of cases that opposing counsel raised however none of them dealt with that he alleges supporters position dealt with a reexamination american academy is the only case that deals with the discussed that actually supports our position with respect to substantially fix what abbott has argued is that the board in some way decision reconsideration it said once again that that particular term allows for some movement and when you look at that figure one of ceasar you see there was that when the sensors actually inserted that that  it is basically substantially fixed because the cables forty gram forty four actually tether to the watch assembly and so whatever movement wherever possible movement takes place as the board said would be due to the movement of the ribs and whatever movement that is falls within and the definition for substantial and fixed lord too and the examiner found that it would have been obvious to combine so sorry with gloria to to teach the claims feature and laura to does disclose the  friend mr johnson largely make the points or emphasize the points that we made in our briefs and in my opening statement here i think the court's emphasis on the term electrochemical sensor is important where you pointed out electrochemical connections may not be wired at all in fact it suggests that they're not wired at all to your point jugglery earlier to me if we lose if we don't get our claims instruction i'd just want to make sure that the court understood that i was not in any way giving up the official notice argument the very least we still have to have every man has the director's agreed on that with regard to the sensor connectivity issue  i'll rest on one simple proposition it is not a reasonable construction of a patent claim to read that claim in a way that destroys its own base with respect to the substantially fixed issue  mr johnson says that we said that some movement was a laugh yes that's exactly what we said but that's exactly the opposite of the restraint which if you look at page eight forty seven of the joint appendix is what the board held and applied