was brought up by the patent owner and are only position with respect to that is teaching a way that is completely inappropriate in an anticipation regime and so on but i think to my mind of this response of specifically the teachings of lawrence column three lines twenty three through twenty nine which can be found the panix twenty one the board states that they explicitly declined to take judicial notice that every working cell phone has a home network that it gives preference to they've based this analysis on the you know since they've done with respect to sue that that completely ignores the teachings of lawrence that say alternatively the wireless communicator is already registered on the appropriate network the wireless communicator simply conducts communication with the network so that the desired service feature is provided to the user and you can find that of the paddocks seven hundred sixty eight so we believe that the application inherent say when there's an explicit teaching was inappropriate now with the construction issue the board explicitly construed the home network as being the network that the mobile communicator subscribed to and we take no issue with that construction in fact would leave it to be appropriate in doing so the board explicitly rejected the patent owners and that alice's that would require additional limitations being preconfigured or any other additional limitations into that claim into that claim term unfortunately when they went to application of it they did that they did that imported additional imitations with respect to what you're suggesting that they were to preclude for your money well at the hearing they asked my colleague mr phil whether or not it was preconfigured and in the  general in lawrence itself when the background section we're describes how met work i mean isn't that because generally part of the whole network is that it's preconfigured to use that network in certain instances it is but we believe it appropriate you know appropriate to limit this killing construction to that instance because the applicant was there on lexicographer and the board specifically adopted the language that the applicant had used in the patent it made no mention of further limitation they clearly defined exactly what they meant by whole network and the board adopted it now when they applied it they imported additional limitations with respect to lawrence they seem to me that sounds to me as though they just collaborated on the plant construction when they appl mobile unit be subscribed to that network for it to be the home network nothing more nothing less if your handset is logged into that network that is your home network and to import the dish and limitations of some sort of algorithm with respect to how that network is chosen which you can see it apparent appendix page twenty with respect to lawrence or appendix page fifteen when they're talking about suzuka they say these portions are so suited don't describe the whole never or any other type of network that selected first among those of the catalogue to the contrary the language corresponding with the three describes communicator unit one thousand one choosing service provider one hundred three for its televis n telephone in of connection service without any further explanation so one of the words the board is specifically looking for an additional algorithm that they explicitly excluded from the claim construction now when they are applying t handset but i'm in lawrence hum from home one one forty six and talks about it said which uniquely identifies a particular wireless signal which is primarily intended to provide that's our time sort of that's  alternatively if the wireless communicator is already registered on to the appropriate network the wireless communicator simply conducts communication with the network so that the desired service speech or is provided to the user now that's an explicit teaching of the preference so don't go to any other network or service provider if the feature that you're looking for is found where you currently are and that's the explicit teaching that was overlooked in lawrence that referring to the home network the claim says always check yes the home network which i take it to mean even if you away from your home network and are registered while being away on let's call it a roaming network that you still under this claim have to check the home network first i take t to check whatever network you happen to be registered on to upload you make might be you know the one in france instead of d c but two issues there you're on i think a reading that would require an absolute checking of the hung can be something whatever you want to register and under the board's construction so that the merely being logged onto the network makes it your home network under that construction the appropriate network and when it does it's under the under the board's construction that is my home network now moving briefly on a society of i might the difficulty that we have to assess it is this the board lift it across a passage from the hearing where my colleague mr thorold stated that the the issues of the teachings of suit and the home network preference limitation were not in the petition and not in the expert that declaration and they think they accurately quoted that that particular passage from the hearing but it was taken dramatically out of context within just a few additional lines my colleague says but this was addressed during the cross examination and our point is just this if our colleagues that represent patent owner have limited their cross examination to dr williams direct testimony his deposition we wouldn't be having this conversation but they opened the door they opened the door and started questioning dr williams about the teachings of society and in great detail dr williams of hind about home which teach exactly this home network preference limitation now what is the home network in society again we have to get back to the original point construction the original claim construction says the  home network is the network that you're subscribed to you know once we have that can claim construction then the teachings of suzuka that are in evidence clearly illustrate that that system that anticipate the the difficulty that we have here is the board has made a couple of different leaps of faith so the state never wanted it ignored the explicit teachings of lawrence and the explicit evidence in the record of  is the sim card has your phone number the sim card has your authentication information the sim card in my phone is how my wife and daughter know how to call me in the phone call doesn't reroute to someone else without that sim card you're not logged on to the the court should affirm the board's final written decision because substantial evidence supports the board's findings that neither lawrence nor sue florence disclosed home or yard or the board found that lawrence  look at the background of the invention and lawrence what it describes is that the the mobile device knows whether it's in a home network by the s idea that's stored in its number is signed into the module if you don't have a number  identification number that identifies the network there's there's no disclosure of a name that would allow the device to determine whether it's in its home network so that's why we think th memory location within the wireless communicator in which an installer technician stores and assign telephone number and a system identification number which uniquely identifies a particular wireless network which is primarily intended to provide airtime service for that communicator so it is the system identification number within the nam that identifies the home network there is nothing in column three that refers to a system identification number stored the nam and your i said a second ago that yes column three does  describe roaming four for service i should qualify that a bit if you mean roaming in the sense that there is necessarily a home network and by roaming we mean we're looking outside the home network no we don't believe that column three described roaming for services by roaming for service you just mean it looks to different networks to see which one provides the desired service that and that's it does describe roaming for service so that answer questions i'm not sure  commission number with out the nam correct so this isn't free is talking about system identification numbers generally not for the specific instances where there is one connected with  and of itself meant that whatever network was broadcasting this idea was a whole network there would be no reason for the name it would be the mobile device would receive it as id and say that's my home network but that is not what the background of the invention discloses the the s idea in column three is separate and apart from the nam it's just identifying the network at the very least we believe this is a permissible reading of of lawrence and the standard of you here is substantial evidence what about same argument people just look at different parts of this my speculation and you know you sure well that i mean even even putting the waiver argument aside there is nothing in those three lines that we believe says anything about home network it says if the wireless communicator is already registered on to the appropriate network in the wireless communicator simply conducts communications with the network so that the desired service feature recent example of the situation were were you have appropriate  one example could be it was registered with a network for the same service before it never d register and so it's still registered with that network it's not the home network then become the home network i don't so as i understand the chinese sample let me just clarify your question right so i live in d c and i have my home network as well my local cellular network is in d c i go to china i've never had any economic relationship whatsoever with whatever the chinese cell phone company is my phone finds it and uses it now it seems to be a little odd to call that and network to which i am  you're trying to i guess it depends on what we mean by subscribe and i don't think that's been fully fleshed out in the record you know if we talk about how we normally use cell phones you know a subscription is whichever carrier you pay your monthly fee to to provide you know normal service when you're at home i don't think that definition applies here in china on some network that you've you've never been for and if i may just move quickly to the argument that the board somehow imported some other limitations into its construction of home network i don't think that's what it was doing i think it was just applying the plain language of the claims and claim want to peter's on it's a certificate of correction if at age eleven thirty six the appendix or at least part of claim one is this this idea that the mobile device first has to look to the home network and then if the home network does not provide it as i had service it looks to to other networks i think is plain from the claim it requires choosing a desired service to be requested determining if the desired service belongs to said first set and then if the desired service is belongs to the first set registering with the first network and if it doesn't then you proceed and look at the second network and register with the second at work so i don't think the board was importing limitations in the definition of whole network i think it was supplying  let me move briefly to souda as i understood from the briefing the only argument that was being made on appeal with respect to sue it was that the board legally erred by rejecting this argument that sued it does not disclose that the first network is the home network because it wasn't required to enable sudha while it is true that the case law does state that a specification does not need to describe what is well known in the art to be enabling that doesn't displace petitioner's burden to point to something in the record to show that every single limitation of the challenge claims are described either explicitly implicitly the board held that the board found the petitioner had not met its burden here and indeed the balance admitted that they didn't have any evidence on this point at the oral argument we have one moment to make sure i covered everything that i wanted to cover one point with respect to the teach in a way argument to try to i believe is you that recognize that the board never used the words teaching a way below when we talk about teaching the way we were relying on teaching always a stand alone argument for why lawrence does not anticipate it is just a we believe that lawrence teaches a way that explains why lawrence does not disclose that the first network is the home network and lifted out of context by the board the discussion in dr williams cross examination is very thorough as to how home network is selected in the specific preferences given to it our position here is the board ignored that discussion in favor of moving into a form of analysis based on inherent see and then misapplying those teachings or that analysis not just on suzuka but back over to lawrence so again we believe that they've they've completely missed the mark with respect to the explicit teachings and the explicit evidence one other thing that came up during the the oral argument here and that's the the concept of subscription and what exactly is required under subscription firstly it never was construed below and unfortunately when the boards explicit construction of  what the network that the mobile unit is subscribed to that kind of import something into the plane that needs further explanation and then again that's why they that issue of what actually is required is a claim construction issue but looking specifically at appropriate i believe you you probably raised the term appropriate because in that context of the question becomes what  to in a way this is seems to me the reverse of the first case this morning in the first case your client i think in the brief was making only a claim construct an argument in this case at least according to the case you're making no claim construction argument at all it's pure application application to lawrence application to society yes your honor we believe there to be two  o levels to this argument the first one is claim construction was it proper to import these additional imitations and create an implicit construction once an explicit one had been given and then the two application arguments but looking specifically at appropriate i'd like to address that just moments i am sorry where in either the headings or the issues presented is there anything about claim construction we are raising a claim construction argument i don't think  in those words or not specifically it's the thrust of our argument is is to feel like i've mentioned in the first being that by implicitly importing additional requirements that gave us a claim construction construction you're right and you're not i understand you to now argue that you didn't make that concession that concession was taken out of context because it wasn't in the petition it wasn't in the declaration explicit teachings of lawrence once they had the term and that suit it had a problem they applied the suit analysis back to lawrence and was in question mr philip cordingley he answered within the scope of their questioning but absolutely someone we what's your point my point is they overlook the explicit teachings and in column three which give the appropriate network a preference now the term appropriate has obviously to embody it's either it is the whole network or it isn't to exclude one of those two embodiments by saying nothing here says that it is one of those two embodiments it is inappropriate just common sense it either is your home network or it's not under this construction it is because you're locked onto it but nothing in the patent or it in any other record would require excluding the other embodiment again thank you