are you sure you're supposed to be there so yes you have to stop and think  for the first time at oral argument and it also demonstrates the danger allowing the board to fill in the gaps and in the references and time permitting the subject to your questions i'd like to address four primary points two with respect to each reference sequencer and that year two sequencer is said to have very limited control and it has specific reference to putting a common clock domain between the sequencer and one or more memory modules it let me ask you this i then we have an express teaching for two or three the memory interfaces you can find in a paragraph eleven to an extent thirty six young which says they're designed in accordance with the particular signal interface requirements and physical characteristics of the respective one of the memory modules so we don't have to speculate that there might be a pass through the teaching is you have a generic signaling you have very limited additional control for this sequence or primarily it says for common cock domain and then you have all of this expressed teaching from paragraph eleven that says the memory interface is where all of the particular requirements for the memory are handled and generated it's the bottom tier there's no teaching that that signals to be used by the memory devices and legal the specification teaches that there are two different generation units one for addresses and one for address generation unit whatever which teaches that it has two distinct units and they're there they're separate and distinct and there's no block diagram for the address don't generation unit but there is a block diagram for the data generation unit and you'll see that the block diagram has these x or gates which provide the logic for that the data generation unit which is very detailed and specific but there is no and that time is no and that's figure that the address generation unit has the same structure functor operation as the data generation unit the two distinct blocks in the board frankly completely overlook that because they cited the data generation unit as evidence of how then shift the entire word bit by bit for testing so it as a read operation and a shift up or operation and we try to take you through figure four which of weighing which is the redundant shift operation and it might be a little interface because it operates on a common control line caps the shift to extra times with redundant bits and so the memory be interface as a read and shift operation that is influenced by the word with and memory be by the operation of the memory interface for memory b and so the operation of one transparent interface is influenced forced to through it and the board for its part stopped with the read functionality and didn't didn't look too didn't look to the i'm sorry the board only consider the writing functionality didn't consider but that was right after they said send us that it's part i mean this sounds like opinion writing issues the board is allowed to reject your arguments by saying they're insufficient without being accused of burden shifting well if they acknowledge it i could only have to acknowledge it i mean if you think that they made an error and that their decision lacks substantial evidence because they didn't address this i pad specifically then you argue that i mean to argue that their burden chipped in because in sentence they said they don't agree with your argument is a bit too much fair fair enough your honor then then i think that point taken but it doesn't change the result the result is that the board didn't consider the evidence an argument that showed that one memory interface is influenced by the operation of another and so whether you call it burden shift or you we take that language i can't say they didn't consider it they may have just disagreed with you you can say th substantial evidence doesn't support their decision but it's not that they didn't consider it ok with it then then i maybe it's best said that subset that they're born is not that the board's decision is not supported by please the court now lists manufactured procedural argument for the adverb grounds is both usury and irrelevant under the uncontested claim views i mean it's it's almost a black and white thing and i'm not i can't speak to how why netlist has such a contradictory view but the issue as it crystallized post institution really was whether the operation of adverb rouge is address generation unit somehow removed what a page that appendix six six six so actually let me let me back up because they're both the petition and the board's institution decision well said that the sequence or the end sorry acknowledge that the operation of the address generation unit operates as needed when it translates what the sequencer has generated which is of this address in control signal control signal for testing a memory device and laid evidentiary foundation for this dispute over how the address generation unit you know what it actually does and in the reply and this is it appendix six six six that up at the top there's no dispute that the sequencer produces the best address control signal this is the second and third line and then down below in the next paragraph we say that the actual address and information produced by the sequence are in the address generation unit forty two i'm sorry and the address generation unit forty two really applies the received address in your to a given physical memory it was going to get me so you just demonstrated the importance of the comma in the english language when you read that and you would you missed the comment of course comma change the entire meaning of that paragraph i'm just pointing that out through twenty two forty three this is where the you know the our actual articulation of as needed shows up for the first time in the records when there was opposing dr alpha in response to of six or seven questions maybe more about what is happening at the address generation year dr alpert responds after a number of questions he says was going to say it might not is that appendix to two for two it's according to the physical characteristics of the g o the memory module it's possible that the address can really just address and control can just pass straight through depending on what might be required to map the patterns to their own home organisation so it's only in response to their questioning on this particular issue that that pass through comes out it wasn't a new theory that was sprung upon netlist and certainly not at the world hearing when it came to the oral hearing it as the petitioners and discipline first not let's go second netlist it up and they made a lot of arguments in the world hearing about they have new counsel and they made a new argument on this new argument on that your argument here they didn't call out this pass through theory specifically is new argument when they had the opportunity to do it at the oral hearing in the board didn't view it as a new argument either they didn't like the answer i think that they got when they deposed dr alpert but this was not a new argument that santa sprung on them but if you so if what the issue as it crystallized there right so what i was driving at was the next sensors for example a memory interface may translate addresses supplied by controlling sequencer in the memory interface may translate the data perhaps the most compelling substantial evidence in the board cited to this not decided to it but repeat reproduced the section in both the institution decision and the final ribs cision is if you look at paragraph forty eight of albert about halfway down that paragraph it says when electronic device two is operating in the business mode however the business enable signal causes the multiplexers were five and forty six to select the best address control signals and the test data provided by the respective higher level sequencer if we want to be if we look to figure six and we see what's happening there which is an appendix ten thirty so the multiplexer selects the business address control signal and then finally with respect to the complaint about the data generation the board relying on the data generation unit the the language as to eighty nine connie klein three it says for example in this is an example of offical independently because each data handler is configured to write to and or read from the corresponding plurality of data ports of one or more memory devices without being in communication presumably with any of the other data handlers were other data ports of the memory devices as such each data handler can be used to generate seventy nine judge grocery were looking at wang you can see the figure two great there there's no indication that any of the individual transparent memory interfaces  communicating with each other and in the second or actually the first full paragraph on the kind of twenty nine explains that however wang's figure two and in the first full paragraph second sentence a says however for transparent best it is preferred to have the test interface generate test patterns locally to avoid test data routing from te there's no evidence in flank that they communicate with each other while they're doing that another characteristic of operable independently from collimate is that the tao to handle handlers are generally modular and again in in at appendix ten seventy nine and figure to see the transparent memory interfaces are generally modular so the board really just took the characteristics of operable independently from the top of column eight the four three four pattern applied that to the plane reference and made a determination that they operate independently thanks ike i see that i have about a minute left i know that you know there is a cross appeal i want to make sure you have the panel the opportunity to ask questions with respect to the cross feel otherwise on i'm happy to see the remain in my time and send dix ok just on the i don't have a case off of the top of my head for that the administrative procedures act i think stands for the for the proposition that if the board is going to institute a new ground that's not in the petition that the your honour's a few quick points first of all in response to what counselor just said the deposition testimony was never made part of the titian or the reply the theory was never adopted there is nothing to move to strike there is no or up in a response to we had a fist heard a lot of testimony that the border post about whether the wang data handlers communicate with each other but that's not the client construction that it is claimed construction is without influence or control by another and i to establish a prime facie case it's not there and the board basically said as much we have rules are rules are that the magician must have a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence because that's the thing they raise in their petition this is support that if the board did raise an entirely new ground a rejection certainly they're allowed to present evidence to respond to that it was for section eight they are required  most importantly moving to supplement the price supplemental information in support of the in situ to ground and the board made it clear and that's what the rule expressly allows you to do there's no rule that says i can sit back and wait  to to get there with absolutely and that was the reason and part from the board the board said we have these procedural safeguards you have the right to put in supplemental evidence and i thought one last point just right if i may jump to the record or the like before your reply well i don't so first i don't think we felt that the record needed to be supplemented because because  trivial implementation is something that will fit in the need to be supplemented then why did you try to put it and you have it with your well so the supplemental the submission of supplemental information in the rules with the board  in our experience not some before the board routinely denies those requests are typically granted for instances where a pattern or makes a challenge to whether or not  reference is a printed publication or something like that that's typically the sonora where the or allows the submission of supplemental evidence but you know for these trivial implementation details it wasn't a matter of putting evidence into the record it was a matter of organists so what the the it was a matter of saying this trivial implementation detail we did not need to rely on cern cern shows this an ambiguous leigh the evidence was sufficient in the  record you know to go forward we didn't have an issue with the board's institutions please we thank both sides of the case