and i think we're ready to go now mr evans i think you may please the court the gerson invention here concerns a very straightforward idea that idea is that when you're at whole a place of worship any place we are might get separated a bit from your cell phone that you can put vibrating device on your wrist and when you get phone calls and text messages you'll know that you receive them you can be displayed for you and you can every one of the connections between the cell phone and the watch and that you're supposed to is a wireless connection every single one there's nothing intervening when you're at the pool is no cell tower in the deep end make the connection it's just straight from the watch to the phone and it's that way for a purpose because you're not trying to get a great distances but it's always wireless every discovery is always wireless in face of that there's claim one which it talks about the transmit receive limitations you have to transmit from the watch to the phone a telephone number and a text message you have to transmit it with a transmitter in the watch to a cell phone receiver in the phone transmit receive transit receive not in this claim element and i submit that when you use it in one place and not another you're trying to you're trying to send a different new greeting to the construction of coupled to as allowing both a direct and indirect connection i agree with that with limits in the power integrations case the word cup was actually in the claim element and they tried to read it to say that any of the elements and want to circuit were coupled to each other in the federal circuit this court so that was to grow and so i submit that in this case  charter where they're trying to take and say that something is coupled when you have a wristwatch that is coupled to it that is connected to a laptop that connects to a proxy server that goes in the cloud that goes to another proxy server that couple doesn't ever show up as a word in the claim the claim talks about transmitting to a receiver and receiving from that begs the question of whether or not it's direct or indirect so we always generally will look at th trying to say that all of the different elements of a circuit on a surfboard were couple to each other and this court's or none of that's too broad for couple you can say they're all coupled it's less than that in this case in a chara they're trying to say that it's coupling  interact so that we have to we're defining the definition right so we're defining couple that including interact and then we define the indirect to mean i think this is all in correctness is all there i don't think it should be i don't think a high if i'm talking on myself to my mother i am transmitting a message it is going through a cell tower in a cell network and it's being received on my mother's cell phone it is transmitting and receiving and know the wireless connection we we put forth in our proposed structure but we only get there through reading the specification but once we start reading the specification and look at the different ways they talk about devices in the life and then the board looked at expert testimony and frankly you tell us we can't rely on that but you keep talking about your expert i mean if it's a battle between your expert and their expert then we're bound to defer to their acts were all within your still bound by the distance between the the watch and the phone not long expanse of distances across south towers not nothing require intervening proxy servers and heavy heavy electronics so give me an example of what i mean a watch cell phone are probably still is equally proximate next to each other and that they can be in the car across the house they can mean you know what makes a difference then if they're going to or cell tower at that's going through some other and direct means if it's the same simultaneous translation because this this invention works you know in remote remote areas where you might not want to spend all the battery power to have your cell phone i'm sorry to have your watch have to find a cell tower to back your your not going to answer the hypothetical that if we disagree with you like construction you still wet because you can't come up with anything where you think it would be covered well i don't understand you i mean i'm not trying to play games no i don't understand if we were jacked your construction of the direct what are we left with in terms of construing it as indirect what would interact could include that still doesn't cover the reference in i can't think of such a thing didn't propose that construction that's what i think the construction is wrong i thought you were still making an argument that even under that and option were done it would still be no and i say that because you can't use the word  transmission is sufficient is what's wrong with their anticipation finding that was rather far from the claim to charge an issue which whether it's a patient by that is that is that the thing they're trying to link is some bodies are twenty five embodiments in acharya and it selectively connected them they don't appear there is a range in the claims and if you read the case of that money that money involves several different protocols with differences and all the elements were there but they were different protocols and this court found that you can't and you have it has to be as a range of the client and so i believe net money case precludes them you know what apple says is that there's a unified first electronic signal well the bore never said unified they tried to take all these different signals which were coming from different environments and arranging them as in the claim of hindsight analysis you can't do that and that money finally  acharya on obviousness others no motivation behind their expert provided on our expert provided extensive testimony about why there's no motivation behind the simple aspects of sweeney with a complicated cept infrastructure charter you know genetic concepts says when two devices work just fine there's no reason to combine them and the only thing the board found here is a repeat of the arguments that said we agree with apple it said they would be beneficial in places but that is not a the digital to analog converter to adjust the control input and vary the switching frequency the prior art disclosed an intervening memory that sever this requisite control relationship and who that was the problem in that case we don't have anything like that here number one because we the transmit receive limitations don't have that cause language it says transmit transmitter configured to transmit for a signal received from the cell phone and even based on that language there is no suggestion that there's any intervening circuitry here that somehow interrupting the signalling pathway so either way you have signals that are meeting that those limitations that this is case as it relates the claim construction  have get that off my mind first and foremost the board other than that the board found the claims invalid here on five grounds really two main grounds which are independent of each other a both you know it weeds if we agree with the board on inches of patients we will absolutely this court in a form the courts final written decision on high ground either way we don't think there's any legal error and the board's decision and its findings are supported by substantial evidence  the board alternatively found that even under moscow's proposed plan construction are in the direct impaired connection a very that actually only applies the claim limitations to be an eight and the board found under that six limitation that that i am imitation with met even under direct and or mosses direct compared connection very specifically or in under on page twenty two of the board's decision forty eight of our read brief that illustrates the board's finding there where you have this direct here connection between the political device and the cell phone in the bottom right hand corner that's a modification of more came up with so even under their proposed claim construction have that that argument doesn't hold water turning first anticipation or turning to anticipation masa same first electronic signal argue argument the board consistently cited to the same signal throughout the claims it's a signal that initiates a communication session and one thing i wanted to highlight on that just to provide a little bit of background context is the hill is undisputed before the key cab that that first electronic signal with this invitation and enough it has to be call or text message that stored in memory and in fact in page zero four three one of the appendix macias expressly takes the position of the first signal is an invite request with respect to memory and limited and the board found there and that and also i would point out that the board recognized th final written decision page fifteen sixteen the court the board agreed and said the claim does not limit the first like tronic signal to an incoming call or text message but even under masses proposed construction you have this language in column seventeen where this control message limitations throughout reading the passages the board site turning next the obviousness grounds the board provided reasoned explanation evidence supported explanations and clearly articulated the motivations to combine the border light on teachings from the references themselves they weighed both parties expert testimony on that issue and those findings are supported by subst tracked the board's decision we tracked the petition and we tracked all the different signals they tried to bring together we put them in our open brief in a table that spans for ages thirty to thirty two of our opening brief and it points to all the different body of us that they tried to combine they now call unified first electronic signal and you can't do that under net money and we show that because there's all these different signals from all these different bison picked and poked in selected like the different protocols you can't do that