we have the courage to reverse the board's decision in this case because of improperly construed the term in foot porath signal in the five hundred five patent and as a result of that improper construction it resulted in rod range of frequencies for our of we submit that that type of construction is wrong because not only does it go against the clean construction principles that we've been taught for years that you start with the intrinsic record and look at that record and when we presented that record to the board the court said our construction is not without appeal meaning that we actually had some merit to the construction you're proposing because our construction is both is based on intrinsic record but then discounted  what it means to say it's received at the receiver prior to processing maybe can't mean prior to the processing that takes place after it's received because definition really can't be processed by my hearing making it in the clear i mean what our country struggled to understand what it either run means or without a processing it's something i mean something created that signal and i residents without somebody processing something so i and i'm trying to understand what this means right when we were further processing we're referring to the fact that there are these frequency conversion circuits and so what's happening signal such as what's going down by the satellite or what's coming in through the cable transmission and then you have to go through a sequence of changes and it's that sequence that changes that we think is important here because the pattern is very clear that there's a difference in the terminology that the claim in the specifications using on the one hand they talk about things in code are absolutely all which we say is an external signal that hasn't been processed by the circuitry at all and then you have an intermediate frequency signal something that has been processed something that has been converted and as a result of this change there used to be a distinction in the claims in terms of what these two terms mean the input r f signal is different from the intermediate signal there are two different terms and should be interpreted differently as a result however the word in its construction doesn't know how to distinguish in construction instead its construction of input our signal is so one reason intermediate frequency signal and we submit that as a result that can't be the right construction these two terms we're used to very clearly in the specification and claims to mean different things and we think that  construction which the board found to be not without appeal is actually supported pretty well by the intrinsic record in the specification the independent claims talk about the input signal coming into the trainer and then being converted to a provides in the specification is it says it can take in signals in any manner and it talks about the fact that specifically can take in these children signals and satellite signals and of those are examples of the signals that are processing not i think that the distinction becomes clear when you try to interpret input are a signal and the signal that is the intermediate frequency signal mean those are different one is clearly process because the intermediate frequency signal is the one that goes through the conversion and that takes place where is the input our signal is not in every reference to the input our signal the specification is referring to examples of  that have not been a process and so i think the specification actually is fairly clear that what we're talking about is bringing in this extra noise taking all then doing the conversion and then you get to an intermediate frequency signal reflects the fact that they are different signals meaning one is going through a conversion the other has not gone through conversion the other one has come in from the structural source and now is coming into the circuitry for purposes of being external signal satellite signal coming in and then there's something that they claim it is then converting that signal into an intermediate frequency signal and then bringing that intermediate frequency signal into the structure that thompson is describing as their invention and so the conversion is happening sort of outside of the you of their invention meaning of the conversion of that satellite signals happening outside of it in some liquid an outside source but the reason that they do it is tungsten isn't concerned about having a unit that can bring in these external signals and even to take care of them all in one place they're only concerned about what happens after this conversion has taken place and  recognizes that they couldn't bring in sort of the raw satellite signal they need in order for their trainer to be able to work they need to be able to convert that and convert it into an intermediate frequency in order for it to be able to work properly and so when the order looked at thompson it was easy for them to say well your intermediate frequency signal is an input are a signal because they had the following to input our signal broadly as to encompass almost any our signal you could imagine and so as a result when they look at the intermediate frequency that actually goes into the thomson circuitry they said well it looks like it has frequency that fits within that any other or frequency signal that would be out there including every single one that would be listed in five the five and there be absolute no distinction and there be no reason for the claim drafters to call something an input are a signal it in fact was any sing off because they knew how to distinguish between the input signal and the intermediate suppose you could have written your claim was receiving the signal from an antenna and then in said received signal into you know converter to down convert to an intermediate signal mean that would have been perhaps a clearer way of capturing the thought you're trying to capture now perhaps i mean i think they inventors used the term input or of signal consistently and they gave examples of what they considered to be and they have depended claims that talk about what the source of it is and so all of the intrinsic record supports the idea that we're consistency supports it i think the board recognize that consistency although it decided to go with a dictionary first definition for this  can you talk about the other side's argument that when you look at the claim you're doing a claim construction of the claim there's a term called intermediate signal in the claim and then also an input are a signal and so as a matter of claim construction largely was driven by some concurrent litigation and so the pattern never took up position in that case about what intermediate frequency signal means but the broader the broadest reasonable frequency is a signal that has an intermediate frequency that differs from that signal and in fact it actually supports the board's construction because the the tuner the frequency conversion circuit that that signal to the intermediate frequency is focused on the frequency changing the frequency of that input signal to the intermediate frequency so actually the claim language in the specifications support the board's construction that the input are our signal means a signal in the input signal that's in the r f spectrum this specification clearly define af as radio frequency in the border naturally just look to the i trip believe it well known dictionary to see what that's factory mids and there is no dispute that the spectrum that the board shows this is not a case like you know texas digital or some of the others where the board just reached out and grabbed like webster's dictionary to find the broadest reasonable the broadest construction that it could it went to a well respected technical intermediate frequency signal and an input signal that has a different range than that intermediate frequency or and you have to understand that there was a lot of context in this i p r's as you might imagine and the petitioner put on evidence that it is well known in the art to use cable boxes to use satellite boxes that would take a what the the panel first to is a broadcast signal and that's the signal that comes out of the medium the original source that's transmitted in refer to the panel to column one line twenty three to twenty six where it says a television or video recorder includes a television signal receiver to receive terrestrial through odd cast cable television or satellite broadcast television signal so actually the whole factual predicates of their argument that the that the patent  and when i talk in him it's not surprising that the pattern use the term consistently input our signal so much because that's used in the claims twenty times so it's not surprising that the same this claim is it starts with receiving yes and the receiving just means the starting point of what we're talking about rats starting point could be and i'm imagining a new set of circuits that has i'm going to make up that's what i'm right it seems to me with the board has said we're going to take this claim language literally receiving means starting anywhere anywhere at all as long as we have three pieces that's crap that's what the claim recall depends on the frequency yes well what's interesting your honor is that we hear from the patent number that this signal can't be preprocessed and yet it can be a satellite signal that goes apparently directly into the television w that doesn't exist and in fact the pattern itself makes clear and this is what they're concerned about relying on silence as a disclaimer and use that as a basis for lexicography if you look to column three of the terminal fifty two what's missing from their a satellite and you know why because a satellite requires pre processing it requires a satellite dish to receive that signal televisions don't receive satellite signals and this is for if you look at eight six two one seven there is a description of a typical you know prior or as was known in the art at the time configuration of the television that was used in konoha junction with the satellite but the signal that's been put to the television it basically spoofs the television receiver into thinking it's receiving  input to that television also qualifies as an input or a signal that's basically all the board fat and there's evidence in the record to support that i didn't hear anything about the othe making on appeal to the or in order to develop that record and in this case in this case the patent owner didn't make either the argument with respect to the plurality to modulators or to the quite clear this is on page ten seventy eight on top of the appendix their only argument before the board was that the only produce video output it did not produce analog they made no argument with respect to the analog to modulator if and now you're on appeal that's their only arguments and of course the will produce a separate video and audio which is exactly what thompson described the same is true on the digital to analog converter of a the only argument that they made was that kerth couldn't be combined because a one zero nine nine through one one now they're making a completely separate documents that the i guess it's a little bit hard to understand but basically that that the the you have to do model late in the digital to analog converter of the digital signal again the combination that the board relied upon is exactly the same combination that's described analog demodulator so again even if the board even if the panel finds that it's hasn't been waved it's just wrong on the facts and unless there is any other question of c thank you very just two minutes signal i think it's important to remember that nothing in the claims in the specification or anywhere else in the record except for the dictionary definition and the argument that we've heard talks about and i think you've heard some arguments that i would disagree with required to the idea that it can't be a broadcast signal dependent claims specifically call out broadcast signals as being input or of signals and so those are explicitly s