ok we have two panels this morning four argue cases and a submitted case our st panel will hear one oral argument and then at the conclusion of that oral argument the panel will retire and then we'll come back in a few minutes to hear the remaining cases of the morning with a new panel so we'll start with the loan appeal of the  quote is configured to authenticate the querrey using a cryptographic technique the examiner ruled that the cell directory service of l who these are the core of the core utility services to other agencies yet i have a little trouble following all of this have just let me see if i understand that you have two arguments here one is you think there are t what i'm trying to get out is if i disagree with you that those are two separate functions and i do it all as one entire puncture whether that is whether you still have an argument that there is no r p c at all  client has to queering the c d s to locate the remote server and vendor or see what's known as a partial binding handle just to communicate with the remote server so because the c d s is necessary to create an r the board also erred in finding that the prior art disclosed the indication limitation of the claims and it does so based on a misconception that if the d s s performs any but four step prior to the formation of the secure communications link by other components that's the claimed indication and that's not true because the claims require an indication that the d provides the parameters for the for the v p n to the client and host and that's the innovation of the patent is to use the d n as s to automate secure communications links and there's no substantial evidence that either disease or lended went discloses that the claimed indication so as e this is simply a variation on the standard internet s public key and digital signature or sick records and then any time that the client requests the network address for a host or a to claim indications the st is simply that the c d s returns a network address in response to a quitter that's what any game server does and that could be you know the secure site where it could be just a regular si but it does it regardless all it's doing is returning the public record it's kind of just a administrative function that it does the nd indication and lendon that the board relied on was what's known as the access control list and that's even farther afield because all the a c l does is that when you want to make aquaria of the c d s st the c d s checks to see whether you are authorized to make that query to access that name or perform s operations so it's a step before the return of the network address and you do it arliss of whether you're seeking secure or non security medications and the fundamental difference with a patent this is the p what the access control lists if you if you are one of those authorized clients then you will get an ip address returned to you and if you're not one of those authorized crimes then you're not going to  get access to an ip address and that's true whether you're trying to secure an unsecured so it's just i guess the point is if you are getting an address in that context then that proves that you are hard to rise in then perhaps that's some kind of indication that ok the system can handle secure communications systems because that's the only kind of communication link you're going to get and then if you're denied and ip address that's also an indication that you client haven't been authorized and so therefore you're not going to get it secure communication it is an important distinction all the a c l does is are you authorized to use the c d s right and for certain functions it is not about are you authorized to engage in secure communications and this is the fundamental distinction about what the indication is that what the claim says is the indication that the d n a s s itself supports a stablish in the secure communication  the d n s s has to be to contribute to the creation of the link itself just mere public return the records which was admitted to be in the prior art that can't be the meaning of the claim you interpret the claim in light of the specification in light of  in the security services to to meet this claim limitation yes that is that is correct is far is a summary of the words that the board used and the way that they put their opinion i submit that they have only assign an examiner rejection at the board that at least incorporated some how well i believe the ministry of procedures act provides that intermediate procedural decisions of an agency or doing was searching for evidence in the record to support this factual finding i might be with you but we still have to have a factual finding that lindemann meets the specific claim limitation of claim part of about the call in london right then and so i guess the gap is that the patent owner made a specific argument and the board didn't ever addressed that argument and the order is my understanding the board is not required to address every single argument raised final patent owner so i mean whatever you have but this is the primary argument by the governor about this specific claim i mean if any were to take your position to the logical conclusion before right just one sentence opinions and not saying anything more i mean what we don't really have a clue here that the board's in saying to us communicating to you that it likes what the examiner said and disagrees with what the patent owners trying to counter and and therefore that's why the board is affirming the rejection it's a little more cryptic and that will mean that what you just pointed to us such examiners opinion right that's the examiner's findings again can you point me to something in the board's opinion that addresses this point that we could use as a factual finding to at least you know i looked you're probably not going to i look at the boards opinion yesterday it always seemed to address was the argument that the seed c d s and the security services are different entities and it said no they're not they all kind of function together services are different they're separate so the security service using r p c doesn't meet its claim limitation that i think the board's done enough but it seems like there's a separate argument that the security service doesn't even do r p c at all and the board didn't speak to that and i don't know why i can't read the stuff for myself and figure out whether the security services are p c i mean that's my job the board has to make the actual fighting so again is there anything in the board's decision that i missed something just a hint that they were deciding that issue the board's approach to this was to affirm the examiners well can you point to to anything in the board's languages to adjust their incorporating the examiners reasoning on that point i mean even that would be good enough but i don't see any of that i don't believe that the four referenced incorporating the examiners analysis the the board reviewed that analysis and found it persuasive affirmed it but but the board itself did not read or rate the exact same points they simply affirm the analysis and addressed the patent owner's primary argument on appeal which was that this question of whether or not  security service in the still directory service are two separate entities and of course that the teaching of the reference is that there are any resident incorporated even though the board did it seem to address or do you have a clear argument for why the security system so you want me to infer that with the board recognizing that the patent owner made this very argument that the board understood that argument and rejected that argument by affirming the exam rejection yes and in doing so must have necessarily adopted the reasoning of the examiner but i believe that it would be sufficient that the the board found that the evidence showed says with reference to the security service of land and performing this function and the board says we are still not persuaded by patent owners argument for at least the reasons previously discussed what do you understand the reasons previously discussed doing tail with among the reasons discussed above is this this question about the difference between the security service and the soul of the rectory service which the board did extensively discussion that the preceding pages well i and specifically do you i guess i let me ask the question more pointedly do you understand that reference to reasons previously discussed to refer to the material on page eleven which is appendix twenty four of the board's  lindemann describing the c d s as integrated into the security service but is that the final question i guess is does that get you to the point of saying there's your explanation for the board and reasons for the case the the board simply referred to the fact that the argument had been made and they weren't persuaded but i guess i'm a glamour job with that extensive but i take it you're saying is that this material both argument is that is that what you're saying with the i have the same board decision that the that you do and unfortunately the board did not address specifically this remote procedure call issue that they referenced it it was clearly before them they considered it they referenced the fact that it was before them and they were not persuaded they affirmed the rejection of  think that's that's the the board's finding that that the court can rely on the the board considered this argument was unpersuaded and it's in the record from the examiner exactly why that argument doesn't remote procedure call arguments the patent owner was raising were related to the use of transmission for protocol or t c p and the question of whether or not there that provides a moving window of valid limitation there are no further questions ok thank you ok honor i'd like to address st this whole notion of the c d s being integrated into the security service if you look at appendix four thousand three hundred the basis for that is where it says the c d s as any other e service is integrated into the security service which only means that all of these e services can call on the functionality of the security service it does not mean that they're the same and that the c d s all the functions of performs r b c so if there's any theory of integration you know i think that has to be something that would be explored agreement whether or not that you can rely just on the examiner's findings i think that's not correct this court has held the board makes the noble findings it's an appeal in the sense that it's limited to the record that like you know either the administrative agency act it either has to incorporate those findings or make themselves there is no such binding with regard to the remote procedure and the data sharing model that my brother alluded to st of all busy that's an argument for the board not for this court but i would point out that when they talk about in general the distributed computing is based on  c of course it but it also says most p c services use ours are p c it doesn't say all of them and it pointedly has a different procedure for c d s and so for all these reasons i think this court should