go ahead thank you your honor good morning and may please the court if your owners have any question about standing i'm happy to address those now otherwise my plan was to proceed to the merits of  our st ground involving aid in cork could you just speak for about thirty seconds as to why there is standing here certainly your honor apparently has had a series of geisha it is made broad infringement allegations in one example they've accused products that fall d within a specific technical standard and so we submitted a declaration from our senior vice president that said we have sold for years products that meet that technical standard there are other other examples in our briefing but it's clear that based on their infringement allegations it's covering products that we have sold into the market at least according to their definition of what their infringement allegations are so we reached out to them and and said if you're confident not to sue we'll dismiss the appeals but they never replied to us we wrote to them again they didn't reply so this is in line with this court's precedent where you know if you're selling products that might fall within an infringement allegation and the app how levy will not agree to covenant not to sue that confirms that the risk of liability is concrete and not conjecture or a hypothetical  not that that's right your honor i think i think we were trying to say what the inference was from their silence we take that as they have an intention or at least there is a concrete risk that they will initiate an infringement suit but you're not a mind reader right that's correct your honor so i can i can speculate all right w those other products performing the technical or complying with the technical standards and that's the specific reason or you just telling me it just so happens to comply with the technical and what our declaration said was we sell products that comply with that specific standard we also have other evidence that based on what they've said in their complaints about what they view as accused products  we it's possible that our products meet that definition as well so it's really based on what they've said if they believe is infringing is covered by the scope of the claims and coupled with  stop from the determination below so your honors if there are no more questions about standing i'd like to proceed to the merits and with respect to the motivation to combine it in cork there's only two ways to get to the board's conclusion either a bodily incorporation analysis or by limiting cork to its preferred embodiment and both of those your honors err by misapplying this court's obvious analysis so taking a step back we're dealing here with the basic components that the and ninety eight pattern at issue here itself recognizes were well known in the industry we've submitted evidence that discloses all of the components of the challenge claim except for the energy level detector in a box which is taught by cork the board's conclusion was that while petitioner may have explained why a person or a skill would be motivated to combine each transceiver with cork's detectors it did not sufficiently explain why you would upon his accepting your claim construction argument your honor with respect to that limitation because the board found that the court did not meet that limitation based on how it viewed the scope of the term drop in amplitude that yes our our position is that was an error they did not apply the broadest original interpretation of that term instead they elevated extrinsic evidence over the clear intrinsic evidence and so if you if you properly look at the scope of that claim and i can walk through that your honor if you would like but if you look at the proper scope of that claim it would clearly include cork's detection of  management what happened your honour's and i'll point to the record in one second but as back on what happened here is in our petition we argued that cork a met the drop in amplitude threshold indicating a drop in amplitude limitation because cork it can include average drops in amplitude which is what we show cork disclosed then it can work with amplitude modulation so in response in our reply and this is on appendix four eighty three  wouldn't compas cork because it doesn't compas average the measuring averages and we pointed to the specification and expert testimony to support that position the our last ground corkin roberts made this in our briefing but it's clear for that ground that the board ignored the petitions reliance on age expressed disclosure of a  colocated transceiver receiver and instead folded petitioner for not showing motivation by the specific remotely located transceiver and transmitter and receiver of robert so we think the board erred on that ground by focusing on the specific transmitter and receiver of roberts rather than crediting our argument and are showing that aid inherently discloses a colocated transmitter receiver and with that i will reserve the rest of my  argument this morning is that the board conducted an improper bodily incorporation analysis but in fact with the board did judge chen are you  circuit roll twenty seven af yes your honor i recall that we did look into the appellate rules in terms of raising early motions to dismiss for lack of standing  and seventeen asking for a number of documents related to what oyster had referred to as accused products in those accused products related to a number of different patterns where we have perhaps  men some had joined the direct t v they were actually at copa titian or in the piece have proceedings and so we expected them fully to come forward with their evidence of standing with their opening brief and it was only that we recognize that the court needs to decide standings simply as a question of jurisdiction and we recognize that there is evidence in the record now that that has not been stricken  i'm moving on if there are no the questions on that point moving on to the issue of the mentions argument regarding the bodily incorporation argument it's important here we believe to note that the board actually went out of its way not only to respond addressed by the board at appendix pages thirty seven and thirty eight in the board recognizes i think in this in this an ounce of the board recognizes quite clearly based on the evidence of record cork and also the mentors argument that the ada reference does not teach a card the court preference does not teach a card and so the only existence of a card in the record really is the men sums expert statement about placing these components on a card now that the thirty eight are directly i guess i'm getting lost are you trying to dispute during this oral argument whether the board got it right when it said that eighty doesn't fact teach the limitation of having the transmi receiver on the same card your honor just to be clear voice or isn't disputing what the board said about aids co location of a transmitter and receiver but to be clear i mean that is on a ship  and what i'm just getting a little confused because now we're getting into a territory that i don't remember being briefed and disputed as i understand your honor i think the important part here is the colocation of a transmitter receiver on a ship this is the analysis that that the meant and presented to the board it was a it was a configuration where age transmitter and receiver gets incorporated into cork and even as the board said again  a i got lost when you were explaining the board's reasoning there the board was explaining why the combination of cork and aid would necessarily lead to a combination having a separate fiber input in a separate fiber output and what the board says in this in this relevant passage here it says we will accept them then tom's argument about we will accept that there are colocated coquet the transmitter receiver  i'm getting lost mr hogan what sentence or paragraph of the board decision are they is the board talking about this sensitivity as a distinction between a chip and a card well taking here is they're trying to figure out whether there would be separate fibers in the system for transmission and reception and so as the board continues your honor they do come back to the petition at page twenty five dollars which is that appendix one hundred and ninety seven  different splitters that can then feed a separate receiver and transmitter but the idea here and this is i think appendix page one hundred and seven is really nice to show when you drop in aids to fiber embodiment into that transmitter receiver block on cork it doesn't change the fact that cork has a single fiber input output for via directional fiber for bi directional communication and that's what the board was ok where did the bo all of that because i don't remember seeing it well your honor i think it's really in this page three thousand seven hundred and thirty eight when they do say here about halfway down the st paragraph your honor page thirty eight they say as shown petitioner identifies receiver twenty seven transmitter twenty six and twenty three d b couplers as the receiver transmitters and as shown replacing those components and then i think they mean replacing those components with aids to fiber transmitter receiver would not change the fiber input output in that device and the fiber input not put there then then referring to that upper left hand corner of course annotated figure for what they're saying there is we're going to swap out according with the tissues beery we're going to swap out the transmitter and receiver in these three g b couplers in cork with age two fiber environment that does not change the fiber input output in that device meaning in courts annotated figure plain in that combination and additionally you're right i know my time is almost out here but we also have at final read the final decision appendix pages fifty two through about fifty fifty seven dollars or fifty eight dollars we also have  about energy level detection and you could and you can incorporate that energy level detection into something that already has a transmitter receiver and that's clear again when you go to the next page which is appendix one hundred and ninety eight  sentence of that paragraph bottom paragraph is the proposed combination therefore includes a single card with corks optical power detectors and a receiver transmitter and modulator so what we're saying is a person born in a skill bringing his knowledge of this art would come into the here and know that ok it has everything cork has teaches energy level detection it shows you could incorporate that into something with it transmitter and receiver it has the transmitter receiver this is well within a person's or personal or skills in our capability and would be motivated to do so because it would reduce the number of cards in the system thereby reducing so if it can't be individual drops in amplitude and it can't be average amplitude which was our position below then there's no way that you could use it with amps to modulators singles but if you look at the eight hundred and ninety eight at appendix eighty two is there is no substantial evidence that the board plus this could be reviewed to novo because it's an issue of claim construction and it's fully supported by the intrinsic evidence but at the very least the board erred as a matter of clean construction  elevating extrinsic evidence the patent owner's expert testimony over the clear weight of the intrinsic evidence so that we think this is a clear error and claim construction  no other substantial evidence for the board's decision the board's limitation of cork to just what they call protection switching monitoring and put fiber to see if you could use this for other important applications including simply to provide performance information or to automatically control an alarm that's exactly what the eight hundred and ninety eight is talking about when i talk about energy level detection