like to discuss three primary reasons why that was error st specification and claim language itself require that limitation to ensure that the feedback costing well over the input clock by less than limitation reads maintaining the phase difference between the two clocks signals approximately one hundred and eighty degrees now the parties and the board agree that there is a term missing there the word within so with that correction what it says is maintaining the face difference within approximately one hundred and eighty dollars degrees of samsung would argue and the board found that that would allow the feedback clock signal to be behind or ahead of the input so that was my question yes where does it say to you that it has to be one or the other as opposed to odd so so there's three primary reasons and the specification which you know must be part of the interpretation of the claim under philips requires that in order to practice the invention the feedback must be behind the clock signal more specifically figure two which is on the face of the itself describes this switching mechanism in comparative thirty and without delving into the details of all of the technology i do want to make it clear there is no dispute that that the comparative thirty at the bottom left to figure two will either in invert or not the input box signal based on whether the feedback clock signal is behind for our understanding that if you back boxing all must be within one hundred and eighty dollars degrees now the claim twice states that the that the number of the lace cells needs to be reduced in fact the  as a number of delay cells is reduced by approximately one half and that's repeated throughout the fifty seven dollars specification in a long string say in our opening prevent thirteen almost in ten wave which has three hundred and sixty degree cycle the invention is saying rather than using delay cells to shift the full three hundred and sixty degrees of delay we can have the delay cells and we only have to and then we only have to use happen number of the les cells to get us close to zero as you can that's the point of the intervention and that's why the board's application of play meaning allowing the feedback to be behind or ahead doesn't help because in that case you still have to shift a full three hundred and sixty because you can only delay you cannot advance to get to zero and so that's why the application of the plain meaning think i think that would be an undisputed fact not in the record but i i think by the basis of the term delay line for example in the base of the five hundred and seven it would be understood only to   what's happening inside of a delay line is a series of delay elements for example inverters or transistors that basically take your input and delay it by some number of logic gates it's between the input clocks in on the feedback box and in a manner that that makes clear where signal leads are lags by using the word behind to indicate that the single leg one signal point to notice that the structure of thirteen is different here in claim ten this limitation is maintaining the phase difference i think the a matter of just plain english speaking and clean drafting i think it would be extremely awkward to somehow work in the already understood point that the feed back legs i want to be in claim thirteen it's a much more direct stated relationship and claim  hundred and eighty dollars degrees and i think when read in light of the specification that claimed or after understood that since that was the convention and what was described that was the meaning of  this maintaining limit so whatever this maintaining limitation means butcher does not teach it and i want to make clear up front there's some ambiguity i think in the briefs before this court and also in the board's application of this or treatment of this issue this is not a prosecution history disclaimer issue we've never argued that so the the law the clear and unambiguous disclosure is not acceptable  this is a case where we're saying the intrinsic record in this case the file history evidences what the examiner understood the terms and specifically butchers is treating two input clock signals if i can direct the court to figure one of the what your reference which is so you're saying there's no disclaimer that is correct or we're saying it's a implicit definition that was understood by the examiner and now the two input clocks everybody examiner statement that none of the prior teaches doesn't mention whether on technology and why what the examiner must have meant was that the feedback must lag or conclusion but to the nd point the applicant silenced does not matter in fact in the case that samsung cites the sol as our case it was a case that holds prosecution history disclaimer or a stoppable cannot apply due to an applicant silence that's good law and we don't dispute that are goes on to say that you can absolutely look at statements by the examiner in determining what was understood to a person of skill in  as you can see we make the point that samsung is arguing that and this is a quote any d l l where there are two clocks having the same frequency and therefore the same period must necessarily be within one and the point here on earth is that if the two frequencies are the same then of course shifting it one hundred and eighty dollars resort has the effect of reducing the delay cells by half if you out if you understand the equal frequencies examiner understood that feedback clock was plus or minus one hundred and eighty dollars degrees of the input and therefore would have met the maintaining limitation yet the examiner found that that limitation w morning honest maybe same housekeeping question an independent claim ten represented yes run it and it's so promised as a challenge to the board's claim construction misses the mark to avoid in importantly there is no disclaimer or lexicography that permits the plain meaning to be narrowed in such a manner promus should not be allowed to escape the language it shows especially in light of the other claim language that we have here and the intrinsic dollars degrees and nothing more just wanted going back to your question there is actually testimony in the record that supports the point that you were asking promises counsel about which is what does the phase difference tell us in this claim and if you can look at appendix so that's the testimony from their expert you want to let me know when you're there you're ok so if you look at paragraph twenty two their expert tells us in relation to the five or seven patent what is the five or seven patent teaching us it teaches us when the clock delays or advances slides left or right it is called a skew so they are talking about the years your friends there is testament in the record that you would actually go with weights and this goes back to one of the questions during the us as well there is more testimony at eighty two to eight and we can look at that as well so they are samson expert is explaining the background of the technology and in paragraphs twenty eight dollars twenty nine cents explains why you would have clocks signals and why they would there would be if is difference and they could be ahead or they could be behind so the plain meaning of the language we believe is fatal to the argument because there is testimony in the record that shows that the phase difference the term mentone should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and if you look at this language again it does not import any directionality all it requires is that there be a maximum phase difference no more than one hundred and eighty dollars degrees and there's more here if you look at claim her team which i believe was discussed most wanted to claim different embodiment in that claim and they did use different language and i think they should be held to that specially in light of this court case so where does that leave us so that leaves us where if you go back to the turner  that there is this going on and they've conceded that there is no disclaimer i heard counsel state this is an implicit definition case while there is no such implicit definition either in the specifications or the prosecution history let's let me turn to the specification next if their expert it tells us what they mean by a phase difference and that it could either the clock signal could either lag or it could be behind so if you look at least in in that claim it can work either way and that's right or in claim use behind so they cannot ask this court today to rewrite its claim and there is support for this language in the in other places the board construction namely the abstract and the summary of the invention if you look at the abstract look at  dispute about the operation of figure two and in the dispute namely is if you actually look at figure two and the way it operates it actually does not ensure that the feedback talk signal is always behind the input clock within one hundred and eighty degrees let me explain why so there are instances for example and there's testimony in the record on this from their expert their own expert we actually went through the scenario with their expert he admitted that yes in the situation we gave him th gervasi testified he did on re cost and redirect he tried to clean up that testimony but if you actually look at the entirety of the testimony it will show that mr generosity was once he was caught in this sort of that th let me know when you're there where there are so there he's not in specifically focusing on page eighty four and it's eleven through thirteen lines eleven through thirteen he admitted that his understanding was not based pages eighty one and lines eight through fourteen he said his understanding again he said it was not based on the body of the patent but instead was an exercise in abstraction and thinking about what the implementation of the extraction would look like so figure out who does not support them there's more if you go to figure three i think figure three is fatal to their argument they pointed to figure three in their reply brief if if i could have the court turn to figure three i would like to spend some time on that and that's at appendix one hundred and twenty eight three hundred and sixty degrees so the wait figure three works it tells us in the specification that if you have a rising edge of the feed but feedback clock signal in the area thirty two dollars there would be a switch switch would make it make a switch right and in figure two you would make the switch go from position number one to number two ok but more importantly there is no transition there is no shift of the switch positions in the area smart  to the non cheated regions well guess what what do those areas represent if you look at their pattern it tells us those if you do the math it would be one hundred and eighty one degrees to two hundred and fifteen degrees in the st instance and in the  periodic right so it will keep going on so the input clock signal here will keep going on so this is actually figure we believe also supports the board's construction in that it shows that you would have a rising edge so where does that leave us they pointed out to the purpose of the invention right they pointed out that this reduces the delay lines in the circuit well that's already in claim ten the prior discloses it so if you can look at to the prosecution history i heard counsel say the prosecution could history is key here but as the board found the prosecution history is anything but clear let me explain what st as also pointed out the statements that we have in the prosecution history are only from the examiner and i think we should look at that because i think it's telling so if you can turn to appendix three  feedback clock signal to follow the input clock signal within one hundred and eighty dollars degrees right there is no such statement there they are reading too much into this prosecution history and that cannot be supported under this case court case law whether you look at it from the disclaimer perspective either you look at it from an implicit definition perspective or even if you look at it more broadly and i think what's more here i just don't want this fact to get lost on the court claiming to have an application claim eleven is the one where the examiner indicated so if you actually go to the next page and that's appendix three hundred and ninety four you'll see there's a paragraph or were there and it caused the applicant independent claim and that's what we have here today right but it's the limitations of claim eleven that presumably the examiner found were the reason for the allowance but we don't know we just don't know the examiner doesn't give us reasons why he allowed that point i believe the phase difference what happens here is if you look at a clock circuit so you have an input clock signal right which will have a particular face and then you'll have a feedback clock signal with a particular face right so and the goal of the d l l here it's in these circuits is to align the phases right you want the input and the output generally to have the same same face right so that the rising edge of the the input clock matches up with the rising yet of the feedback clock signal and that's what these circuits do that's what to be allowed us and if you look at the stor respectfully it doesn't and the reason for that is if you look at the limitation here it's a very broad limitation and all it tells us is that you maintain the phase difference would then one hundred and eighty dollars degrees right it doesn't tell you the their expert agreed that you would have in this type of situation signals out of both a hat and that a boat behind so the phrase that's what this claim is directed to is that you will adjust the phase difference to make sure that the feedback when you go to the prosecution history they do not tell us they do not compel the kind of reading that they want from the cli it doesn't compel us that it has to be behind as they would have this court construe these claims for the reasons  right that's right and within in our view includes both behind and ahead right that's the plain meaning of this claim term and that's what this court should do and what you're i'm just going to give you one side which is column eleven and that's appendix if we treat if you clock frequency you can see that if you lines down and that's eighty kilohertz so butcher gives you example where the phase difference is not the same and we think that's fatal to their argument in terms of the that the clock signals do not have the same frequency i think that straight on to the hour of the destructive which are so then what's left it's a superfluous language and i want to address judgment or your question on labor you had asked me a question earlier on labor  certified before the board for the st time they pointed to some testimony from our expert and sat if you look at this testimony and this shows that in a d l l you would all this will always be the case that the input clock signal they cannot rely on that testimony was our point but even if you look at it again it doesn't support them and the board here if you look at what the board did with respect to this issue i think it's very simple the board said even if a miscue between judge well it's question and the answer that you got and that is the question of whether a delay line in advance or delay or whether a delay lancken delay aside from the fact that a delay line is called the delay line there's there's evidence in the fifty seven spec that tells us that a delay line can only delay i mean if you look at calling three fifty seven what  around the lines twenty three to twenty six they're discussing the benefit of the invention which again was to reduce the delay cells by half describing how it works they say that line twenty three regardless of the number of register cells those are delay self's suitably the ship register starts at a point close to the beginning of delay line with shifting starting to the right and what this with this delay line does when the clocks  come in there is no delay on the st iteration you can delay by one register cell by one delay unit and each unit has a fixed period of delay based on device dimensions if that's not enough the  nd time through you delay by two delay cells that's still not enough to delay by three delay cells now you can if you're at a point where you have reduced by you have  move back and delay by only to delay cells or even the back to one where you know but you can never take the original input clock and move forward only can't that branch correct which seems straightforward when you say it and now again if you're in the prayer are which are mentioned improved upon but in the prior art where you can delay up to three hundred and sixty dollars to of course delaying by three hundred degrees looks like you have just an advanced by sixty because it's a repetitive wave but the critical difference is you require twice the number of delay cells to get to that point so i think that's important because it it again means that the application of maintaining as they argued is not relevant to the entire zero dollars five cents back or the invention or the rest of the claim the last element in the claim ten so as you reduce the delay cells by half yet they're arguing that you're always plus or minus one hundred and eighty dollars and therefore there's no reduction in delay cells at all because you still would need three hundred dollars degrees worth of delay cells in order to get you close to zero transcript and rather than sort of walking through it now i would just ask the court our brief does treat this fairly or reply brief but if you read the transcript in context it's clear that mr gervasi does not agree that figure two jitters there was a discussion about figure three a pattern as well and i counsel's discussion about the shaded area in the five a seven pound and he says that figure three teaches that the feedback in the head of feedback would knock you out of the clock input because that's a false transition and figure three supports his so i'm just approaching the end of my time i'd welcome any other questions from yours