identify where in the prior art a natural time lag with a random transmission occurred and because this limitation is missing from the prior art obviousness fails and the case should be the construction by the board requires and the construction seventeen yes and it goes through twenty four language talks about natural time lag between the costs not within the core and the natural prime lag as defined by the board based on the specification required a randomness  transmission and because in that landed in the air in the mentioned transmission between the internal clocks for each wheel without necessarily having a variation within the core take a look your honor if you well then the pattern between the classes would also be now because of that we know that the variation with in the clocks has to also be random but we also know that from the specification only lines thirty two through forty three and more specifically line thirty five as well you're right what you what you think the claim lags that occurs between the clocks is the result of the random transmission from each clock and that is how you get the natural time lag in the  with you there but also we can prevail even under that interpretation which we don't believe is correct but under that interpretation there is use me no motivation to combine because her three reasons first there's no crime especially case second and more towards your point the tire pressure monitor references specifically thirty shire and daily teach away from using a bowers like solution they teach pacifically towards perception even when they disclose something that's less precise they teach that there is a requirement to correct for the tolerance every single time so for example if you look at a fifty column forty lines forty four three forty seven it says the r c oscillator requires manchester coding and the manchester coding correct for the inaccuracy caused by the r c oscillator in addition column twenty lines twenty four to twenty six it says as long as the reduction in accuracy is compensated for you can use a less accurate clock so everything about derby shire and they only talks about persistence and it does not take advantage of the natural pine lag in fact if you were to try to take advantage of the natural pine leg derby shire specifically said that it would correct for that because it doesn't want that to work it doesn't think that will work and that's a teaching a way or are about as clear as it can get third assuming you combine powers with derby shire and i think this is similar to the teaching a way that tolerance has to be accounted for somewhere in the system and the rejection doesn't tell you how to accommodate for that tolerance there's a receiver that won't know what it's receiving you can see that it's a fifty one forty five through fifty it's not clear what you would get but it wouldn't work and it wouldn't be a higher pressure monitoring system with a natural time bowers discloses that the nine transmission interval is fixed for a particular device and that's different from the specification of the nine seven three pattern which to disclose is that the nonsense mission interval is random for a particular device can i explain it with an example with that help us thank you for example if you consider a dart board and under bowers one player throw dart and he had he wants to hit the bull's eye but instead he hit a ten at sac that he hit that ten maybe a random manufacturing tolerances this was in hours but he's going to throw it against me it's going to hit  ten going to throw it again it's going to hit a tent every time he'll have a tent in the next player comes along she throws she misses the bulls eye she hits a five every time under bowers she hits a five by contrast in the one seven three disclosure one player throws he misses the bull's eye he hits a ten the next time he hits a seven and a five and a three he never hits the same or rarely hits the same number again it's random player number two gets up she has the five but every time she says she has another number as well it's random that's the difference disclose in bowers i mean disclosed in the nine seven three patent that court this is actually a textbook case for a waiver should apply their argument now is that there's basically two timelines there's a time line between devices and there's also a time lag within a single device and before the board they never and i'm in the black crowes they say the nine seven three patents set forth that natural timeline of the transmission of data from the individual car clock components of each wheel arises due to some substantial tolerance and then later they say by randomly time shifting each frame transmission from my will unit relative to other real units so when they introduced this word random they were speaking of the time shifting being random as between different so to to as by way of example if i had a bucket and i filled it with one hundred cocks and i picked out any one single cock i don't know before hand if that clock is going to run a millisecond faster if it's going to run a millisecond the following two frames so if i had a clock on my desk and i knew that caucus five minutes fast and i had a conference call at one o'clock at a conference call two o'clock in the house of caught three o'clock i know that i'm going to be five minutes early for my first conference call i know i'm going to be five minutes early for my second conference call and i'm no i'm going to be five minutes on my third conference call my point is that i think what we're we're we're not connecting what i'm getting at is a time lag between when all the special occasion is teaching you do it by having the each of the internal clocks themselves having very it's first place that's the patent owner should have asked the board to answer on the facts because after the board instituted trial the patent owner had two critical information the patent owner knew the board's claim construction and the patent owner knew that the board was using bowers to teach this natural timeline and if we go to a two twenty and this is in the in the decision to institute under the section board instituted trial the patent or have one shot to come forward with all their best arguments and all their best evidence at this point pat ownerships said no no no you don't understand powers you don't understand our invention let me tell you what the specification says let me tell you what figure two says let me tell you what these are three says let me show you how bowers is different and they never did that and we can see that in their patent owner response for instance if you look at section b which starts at two fifty four and go through a two fifty six they never talked about this natural time line being not only between the by but within a one clock might have a different case but the court the i agree with you the claim is clear that it's between a vice that bowers clearly teaches that that valerie's also teaches a timeline with in one clock and if i may explain yes our says in addition even should two or more devices and knisley entrancement their memory data at the same time or at overlapping time because the length of the non transmission interval is much greater than the length of the transmission you know the non transmission animal interval among the devices should vary enough such that the next or a subsequent transmission interval for each device will likely occur at a at a different instant instant  call that within a clock and this is clearly shown in the drawings of ours and if we go to a sixty but the strongest showing us is if you look at the read line you'll see that there is an x that means that because the change transmissions are simultaneous the computer cannot read it there was data collision at that point t t one now because there is variation within a single clock when you go to tif for which is the next transmission of tag one tag to you you'll see that tag to it slowly starting to  one you see that it's a little bit to the right at any one time or at time for ok so you see that there's some variation and now tag four is actually chance meeting a little slower than tad one if we go all the way down to the third set of lines all the way over to the right at t thirteen in t forty now there's so much variation between tag one and tag two that they're transmitting at completely different times so if we look at the read line which is one two three the fifth line down you'll see that the computer was able to read tags once it was able to raise taxes to because they're completely  synchronized it's so if we use the dart board analogy it's not true that every time and ours when you throw that dart that you're always going to get ten or you're always going to g the first time you might get ten the second time you might get ten but the third time you might get nine the fourth time you might get eight and so forth so if there's a variation in within the caucus in the ninety seven ten this is a sixty seven starting at line sixteen hours that it will also be apparent to those of skill no art that the device can be used in many other powers is all about preventing data collision it it was now an art that these tire pressure monitoring systems had a problem with data collisions and power this teaching change if you want to avoid data collision use a protocol right i want to look at the record at a two twenty that council directed you to if you look at that sentence that talks about where the board is talking on it decision to institute a tolerance of plus or might says twenty percent you know that might in compass a natural time lag but there are many different kinds of pollard and there's no evidence to assume that bowers fixed manufacturing tolerances are the same as the ninety seven three natural time lag and the specifications actually disclose the opposite ours manufacturing tolerance is fixed as we talked about it a sixty six using a variation with a random variation is a manufacturing tolerance as bauer's that if you look at column eight it's not random it varies among a plurality of devices do you only because of the manufacturing tolerance which is fixed and we know it's fixed because the non transmission interval that includes the manufacturing tolerance is fixed a variation that is fixed is not a random transmission in addition to the solicitor directions to the nine seven three patent at column three which it is on a twenty five confirms this point column three lines line thirty three a twenty five column three line thirty three it says this has the consequence of randomly time shifting the transmission from the first frame of a message but also from the following two frames this is a message within the wheel unit not a different wheel unit so the specification is clear but finally i want to also have to accommodate for that lack of precision in fact if you put in a left hand side flat as the board suggested it wouldn't work because the receiver in derby shire wouldn't know what it was getting it's looking for a pr transmission thank your honour's i see my time's expired