prevailing on the claim construction argument in part your are and i have three or four main arguments one of which the first of which is quite introduction we believe that the board misconstrued at least that the selecting whole and completely contradict in some instances both parties experts what do you have to win on every single one of those arguments and nogueira i don't believe that's the case i don't believe that's case i think that it is one of those arguments will put us where we want to be and that that that this matter should be reversed and rendered not remanded the rendered in this instance because if you were to remain and there's no evidence in that there is no grounds for what the board ultimately held with respect to this combination or this teaching or reasonable suggestion so it's not even part of the grounds there's no evidence on the fourth so we need with respect to let's go to how do i do that when when you're actually asking us to find an implicit disclaimer and there are all kinds of places in the specification where you refer to examples and preferably and you even refer to alternative  celeb i mean that's what i think your disclaimer argument end up read i don't see that in the plain tax welcome if and and that makes a difference of opinion on our part we see that the signal is output and it's produced by virtue of and other g p s receiver of the time is not recycle them in messages such that it takes that data that it produces to the outside world or is intended to produce to the outside world for further processing as as you know the president mentioned or you don't have any of that language that just because those are the embodiment shown that that constitutes a disclaimer well your honor i think when you look at the specification and in view of the claims mean it might be true that if we were under phillips that you could say well the most reasonable reading of this is to say that that these embodiments are really what they're talking about but when you're talking about the bro original work of debt before it really were as the claims require and so they just didn't pass the last we don't even need to address that and that's what we've asked this court force to say we need an original order here so that it can be re say they did it in part they didn't part with respect to their definition but they did collected the second component of that and that is it applies to original order before start where he left off because took a long time to get there but every ordering part it's the is one of the things that i had some difficulty but here how do you order something if there isn't an original order from which to reorder  what what testimony was there to support this proposition that this would be you know something within the ordinary skill in the art for some someone to understand that something that's not expressly t understand the office's policy when there is a prior judicial decision that the board's policy would be to look at the case presented and look at the arguments presented if there is certain narrow areas of an alternative adversary proceeding where the board is not an advocate the board is acting like a she was they a sister corps right and if i have the harness and i be not as not binding on the board but i don't think it it turns on the difference here also just to make a point of these facts even if you were to adapt the claim construction in the board and say th limitation that seems to be the one that you know that maybe there could be some dispute about the dyslectic clearly must happen and back to my table example if the reference says that the legs are attached to the new tonight even if it's not there is the evidence that was presented especially f was a fourteen and says you know sufficiently that we concluded sufficiently that i see what you're saying i think you're better answer and that's though is that first they said it was necessarily taught and then they said furthermore exactly what a message with different workers but i mean usually when did you have a gap you know you say it's hard to find a reference but it but it wouldn't be so hard necessarily to find someone of skill in the art to testified that in fact from that reference that logical conclusion would follow and in this particular instance gordon howard never offered that testimony i don't know why it's so obvious or so easy to do but they didn't explicitly recite or disclose the data selecting them ordeal and even though they may have said that it would be within the skill they don't say modification would be with a skill and so my client is behind the eight ball well they're not saying and i mean that the board's not arguing i didn't understand your friend on the other side to say that that those references had to be modified i thought her point was that if that you can logically conclude that it is teaching at the benefit doesn't say so in so many words what with respect to the point that you raise in your questions there's good reason why  observers we're talking about the advent of commercial marketing of g p s products and we're talking about interoperability we're talking about being able to communicate with other devices directly off the shelf that's what in the  essentially you can take an expert the war can take an expert testimony or declaration out of context for purposes of claim structure which it did i didn't go as far to say which ultimately rendered august i that was an issue that the court didn't decide it in that opinion but they were banded back in consideration for that but but the point being is that mr big alexander's testimony i think to give the context and that is  context of g p s receiver technology and that is that is what we're talking about here not just some one off we're going to program some other consumer electronics advice we're talking about  that contain different data that is in a different order correct now that he has approximately seven different messages that have a fair amount of data that can be constructed and so for whatever your intended purpose you may select one over on a signal you can't say that the signals coming down from the satellites are simply pseudo random signals ones and zeros that are picked up by the intent of the g p s receiver go through some filtering process while you get where you get to the other information to the in impeded after the big inverted to digital signal and then mathematical equations around a lot of math around a very quick amount of time to come up with your location and then that location is spelled in the specification there's no record of evidence that would allow the board to deviate from judge clark reasoned opinion with respect to locations so there's nothing in there that that would that would allow them to do what they did