of the remote server which i receive the documents was not there as construed or alternatively that some of the filing server was not there the electronic document file and server i had in reviewing in preparing for oral argument it occurred to me that ultimately this case either comes down to a missing element or alternatively i mis construction of the claim terms of the board's construction of the claim terms and our view is not so much the broadest reasonable interpretation is the right as possible interpretation and claim terms must be construed in light of the specifications and drawings and i think we made clear in our reply brief that really do not envision what the the board had this construed the claims to be in particular the board has stated that one can have both the fi server and the receiving server within the agency and is a building with the same room and they're still set that was the board's position was that centrally the board's position yes  not an agency file and server and in that regard the final answer really is not intended to be something that the agency has applicants argued in various statements to the examiner on the board that part of the value of this invention was that an applicant could work with this file and server and achieve anonymity and if the file and server is part of the or part of the agency receiving the documents equipment often serves as a key to who the person sending the message is there are certainly ways to get around that but this invention is intended to allow someone to achieve anonymity without having to do something other than more proof their home computer and in that regard the remote server then must be separate from the agency in simply must not be part of  through the the prior art that is mainly used by the or the examiner really gets away from anonymity it goes in the opposite direction it talks about sending data by email the mail is about the antithesis of anonymity properly used it tells you exactly who you received the email from so in that regard we would additionally the board construes or the board points out that the other reference object talks about using a web page for submission of data  electronic mail it talks about cement in a word processor document doesn't talk about using a browser and the claims actually require that she is a general doesn't even use the term browser in the entire application as a filing date of one nine hundred ninety eight there was certainly the opportunity as if it's a priority date was in one nine hundred ninety five which is well after netscape it made it splash with its browser when would you say clay we don't know what that is i've not found a reference to that and my research does not explain and it's mentioned literally once in the entire application and without more to go on it's kind of an artifact out there that we don't really have a way to connect to any existing technology or to the technology in one of the two references i did exactly what was intended frankly based on what we can find someone skilled in the art would be puzzled and they can attempt to draw an inference but there is nothing to actually go on what is meant by his web page correct and given how prevalent browsers and similar types of software were at that time one would think that if you enter intended a browser that phrase would have been used instead or that only in any statements to the court or the p t o prior to ration but it was also not raised in the principal or b b c where the reply brief they petitioned to enter a supplemental brief on this single issue after abrasion was otherwise closed and interestingly it looks like that brief was not even properly entered in the record i was not able to obtain it and we're hearing the court's files  issue was brought to the attention of the peach you know at the time the appeal was instated and it was discussed among counsel there was clearly an opportunity for the p t o to resolve this issue without going to this hearing and therefore it's factually different and as we've pointed out the pincio essentially sets up a system where oral argument is discouraged so an applicant will typically only become aware of who is on the board at the time that the opinion is issued in a case moreover that with it was discussed with counsel on at least two separate occasions one necessarily with the court as well but their regulations make clear that you either can appeal or you can work was reconsideration they really don't give you a situation where you must request reconsider appealing the way one typically does in just about any other situation where one might argue that this type of issue with your brain is an issue of constitutional dimension might that aside i think it's improper to simply discard that  where the applicant has chosen to follow what the regulations clearly set forth as you program path for appealing a decision if it were the only issue to be resolved i think that it is that a motion for reconsideration would be appropriate but in this case judicial economy in resources to my point of view suggests that it's better to get the prior issues resolved at the same time as getting the constitutional please the court invention the process as broadly claim choir's three computers a client computer a document filing server and an agency computer the claim specifically recites the relationships between those three computers the client computer must be remote from the document violence or the document filing server and the agency computer meanwhile need to be separate from one another and that specifically it would go into shows and figure one thirty computer it is remote from the document filing server shown in figure one thirty two as the trusted go between it means work for that same computer as the middleman finally we have the agency computer shown in figure one thirty two as an examiner computer the document is entered at the client computer in ginter any convenient electronic means those are going to as words entered gives examples e mail e mail attachments document is then sent to a document filing server which then does additional processing to make sure everything's in order and at a time stamp and then later sent to an agency computer the examiners computer examiner looks at the document processes it exam and can send information back via the trust to go between the dr and filing server back to the client computer the only thing expressed lacking from ginter is a teaching of a web browser using that exact term analogy and that's just what jacket teaches and rockman says that dentures reference to any convenient like tronic means including email is a teaching away from a web browser we respectfully disagree with that for the very same reason the board put to you could find almost anything you would want to and that would cover almost anything that has anything to do with computers so it's a very interesting and i'm sure that some were reelected these might even understand let me ask you a question that slightly off this and it may in the big relevant but it's a puzzle to me that what happens if there is no or other written document that is clearly on point when there is a petition for a patent for example if somebody apply for a pat on how to conduct a conversation the first person speaks and then the second person speaks and then the first person answers looking at some of the recent patents i wouldn't be too surprised to find  issue how would that be handled well of course any prior r is available to the examiner not just a prior u s patent and i think any example of two people having a conversation for example something from a work of fiction where those two characters talking to one another that would be prior are if they had a good date on it they could and to date the data and other words prior art needn't be a patent it needn't be an instruction manual about how to do what's what's claimed it can be anything existing that the examiner can bring forth to show that what is claimed was anticipated or rendered obvious now of course in this case the court has corrected interests of very expansive teaching and has a lot in it inter does a lot more than what it meant as claimed but i honor in that eggs or from column forty where interset that any convenient tronic beams can be used and he puts forth the number of examples he uses capital letters in those examples for example in electronic mail electronic mail attachment i read web page direct not to use capital letters to denote some existing software program but just to be a sure and for directly through a web page that's that's what i wanted it and i think that the analysis of the examiner on the board was that whatever this might be it certainly denotes the use of a web page and accessing a web page would use the same sort of protocols that a web browser  contrary to hitmen statements the blurb did not say that this was a teaching of using a web browser what the board said was that hickman hadn't challenge the examiners position that this was enough to establish that web protocols were would end interest any electronic means is clearly not a teaching away from a web browser that's the position of the board and we stand by that position now finally moving to the constitutionality argument seems clear the facts of this case are indistinguishable from d v c raising something in adopting statement before this court is raising it before this court it is not raising before the agency we did not contact opposing counsel based on his cock and statement we contacted me after the blue proof was final discoursed b b c opinion subsequently came out it made the issues perfectly clear there was waiver in this case there is no factual distinction between ignorance case and the case in d c and for that reason this court could follow a b c and find there was nothing at all wrong with the court decision here and no reason to reverse on the d what is on the procedure before the board with regard to the identification of the the minister that judges will sit on a particular appeal when does one find out who those judges will be in the course of one subpoena your honor i don't know that they find out i don't believe it's possible to find out any earlier than an oral argument if there is an i don't know that to be the case now your honor but in d v c this court made clear that even if you don't learn about it until the board decision comes out you're still before the war and there's still a procedure to request reconsideration whether or now entourage maine for some reason not want to request reconsideration but requesting reconsideration of the or is hardly more difficult than coming to this court there's a specific procedure in place he's allowed to request reconsideration and if he had a constitutional argument that was i'm not aware of any case like that before the patent trademark office similar question with asked by the panel in the b c and this case was mentioned in response this is the last case that we are aware of that involves the patent office and this sort of town and of course at this point there is no question that all three members of this panel are in place properly under any theory right now  and he had just like in d c he has raised no argument about the qualifications of any or judges  try to keep this very group from a couple of things that i think are worth pointing out this is one of those rare cases where apparently the wilson sporting goods case applies the board and the office have both because i think it it adds to the point of the claim construction in this case is not correct additionally the board in the office takes the position that  the response from the agency computer is in office actually and i think it's clear that the response from the agency computer upon filing of an application would appropriately be the final receipt and we've pointed that out as well but i highlight that you asked specifically about what could be done if there was just no prior art but something was clearly obvious there actually is the opportunity office in the manual examining procedure for an affidavit and i don't think i've ever seen it used but that procedure is there as well on the other argument that i think i'd like to correct is i believe that the applicant actually has argued the teaching away argument prior to bringing it to the board's attention and  our contention is simply that the board ignored that in the process it may be that what they're saying is they don't think it was or get convincingly but they weren't statement seems to be they're simply not raised and i think that's incorrect in terms of contact before the blue brief mr kelly and i apparently have different recollections i don't think they contacted me for liberty but i did actually speak with someone in the office of the solicitor's office  the issues in this case when we were working on preparing the table of contents that would be used for the joint appendix prior perpetration of any of the groups and i pointed out at this time at that time that if we wanted this to go back that we would be willing to consider that i would i think those are the main points that i'd like to bring out the learning