two of the limitations st on claim one it was upheld based soley on the highlighting limitation which involves nothing more than clicking on a touchscreen to get more information about a step in the drug preparation process and there is a board aired under k s r by seeking out precise teachings from one reference rather than considering the ordinary creativity of applying the basic computer functionality disclosed  and morrison to the drug recipe that the board found would be displayed in the combined system and then on claim eight the board additionally relied on the verification limitation and there we think the basis of the board ruling is not clear but even with further explanation alexander's teaching that a remote pharmacist may verify each step as it is performed leaves no room to distinguish baxter address the relevant disclosure and baxter so you know to continue on with the verification limitation well we are trying to you call your saunders what you said the st thing which is that they're not even defending one of the reliant point by the board with that i may vs shall or is that a different one yes no it's a major says must and then this was a big motivation for making the failure to explain argument because i was in the summary of the party's position and it's not clear to us whether the board is is relying on that because of the way it just summarized the party's positions and then had a conclusory statement rather than giving its own reasons and we think that that is a problematic distinction here because the made it you see is just the classic introduction to one of the embodiments and alexander itself as we've talked about in this court hewlett packard case you know i just loser in the prior art that sometimes but not always somebody is acclaimed message nonetheless teaches that aspect what can you point to in the spec and alexander i mean the board construed the verification limitation as requiring an affirmative click trigger to verify each step before continuing to the next and where is that in alexander i i the board i didn't specifically require the quick through verification the board said that there has to be verification before the operator can continue and then it held that claims were agnostic about the source of the input for the verification so it was saunders mr saunders doesn't the doesn't alexander disclose exactly alexander itself is disclosing a system and a method and in the column nine disclosure about verifying each step as it is performed it talks about the pharmacist remotely verifying that w via quote a real time collaboration tool and he specifically says in that salmon body meant that the remote pharmacist may provide the feedback via that same collaboration software or or other saying that this is exactly how these disclosures would be understood and on the other side you know if you look at what the board is saying in its opinion on page thirty six or seventy seven as if s alexander argument you know we also have the highlighting limitation and there the board itself considered the issue to be a close case but here we think it went astray and violated cas our because  basic computer functionality a touch screen where you can enter information or highlight something to get additional information and wish to be clear as you can see it top of column sixteen of the on the computer in the combined system found motivation to combine and so the error on the highlighting staff was it was focusing on persuasively what is being highlighted in the left or the morrison references and missing the point it's a searching for that expressed teaching within the single reference and not recognizing it the argument was saying when you have the combined system and you have the drug preparation steps  disclosed with in the the list interface all we're talking about is simply applying the avocation and data entry techniques that were already present in lyfe to those drug preparation steps and so here it's as simple as tapping on a touch screen but it would be the same logic as if we were citing lift for for clicking with the mouse or using multiple tabs on the screen or using hyperlink about as straightforward a combination there as you can get and you know an issue i think that that has come up in the briefing was this question of well what additional information are we talking about and you know i think the st thing i would say that the it's not a sustainable distinction because the five hundred and seventy nine padded itself doesn't disclose that level of detail it's just talking about the touch granny you can click on it cannot case one of the embodiments just has a detail but you can get sort of on specified additional information but you know the backdrop here is that we're talking about going from the world and this is laid out in our experts testimony where he talks about sort of what was available to the pharmacist before in terms of being able to look at the steps on the label reference materials things like that so we're just talking about going from a in which an operator who's following that recipe on the screen just clicks tops on the screen to get that additional information and and that is you know very simple straightforward combination and we think that the board was improperly analyzing it within the wrong legal framework andras before you wrap up could i just this is just press could i just ask you a basic housekeeping question which is were reversed only as to verification all the claims remain invalid this is a question but if weak and if we reverse only highlighting claims one through seven and twenty two would be you can't process further the verify here i think this is an important time to realize that the board construed this claim limitation and bt has not appealed that construction and in the th construction which can be found at appendix page eighteen i'm sorry seventeen the board says we construe element ha which is an element of a system claim as requiring that quote the system will not allow the operator to proceed to the next step until the prior step has been verified but you're not you're not answering my question my question is doesn't alexander disclose exactly that that the remote pharmacist verifies the process that is being performed correctly and then the abstract says receiving the bar verification be authorized further process was the same respectfully it's not the same thing because in the alexander context that was a reference where telephone calls were made between the pharmacist and the non pharmacist the only quote unquote technology described in the alexander as your past because the protocol described in that sense in the abstract is a pharmacy protocol where the pharmacist is simply calling up and on pharmacist saying you've done it right you can proceed but the inventions in the five  gotten in particularly on claim eight are about having a system which prohibits the hard stuff concepts which prohibits a non pharmacist from proceeding until verification has been received why hasn't got the same things the  of the abstract and says may authorize them to proceed the obvious implication of that is without the the authorization that alexander is talking about is an authorization received from the pharmacist it's a safety consideration for the pharmacist has eyes on everything and on pharmacists doing because ultimately it's a pharmacist life addressing what i'm asking about system claim in particular address now we have a system where the pharmacy the non pharmacist is prohibited from proceeding this is the entire fight the parties had below about what was ultimately characterized as the hard stop limitation and find its way into the claim as  requirement because of the board's claim construction on appendix seventeen so i think it's very important to remember that claim eight is an apparatus claim it's a system claim and one of the requirements on appeal by the media in this case is that the system itself must not allow the operator to proceed until the prior stuff has been their fight and that is where alexander is deficient and that is where there simply is no evidence that the change that required would be i'd like to address briefing mr saunders points about them a much argument because frankly i was a bit surprised to see that position in the reply brief and if the panel would look at appendix page five to eighty one which we  these checks of alexander do not prevent the operator from continuing with the preparations and we cite that page of page twenty nine of our group so from the get go back to its position has always been claiming a j requires a system to do interest ishall steps and there may be environments where the pharmacist only review steps at the end the fundamental problem with alexander all along has been and the board agrees that it does not disclose a system which does not allow the operator to proceed that's the fundamental problem thirty seven cents dispel the notion that the board doesn't give us guidance about what it's doing or why it's doing it on page thirty six dollars of the appendix it's true that the middle of that page begins with a board summarizing baxter's argument the doctor argues that alexander does not mandate that the operator is prevented from continuing on with subsequent dosage steps before receiving verification that each step is performed correctly as required by element  persuasive baxter and that the opposite argument to be t was making that the remote pharmacist telling the processor you're not authorized to continue is not preventing the person from continuing and they could go out and harm patients or have to be discarded because the system itself does not ensure that each step has been verified before allowing the operator to proceed so it's it is it is true that non pharmacists can can make it and they can make what you've said is there seems to be an inference that if you you have the ability to stop and you can stop just because the language you know limitation insists on the stop depositions and all of that and the board ultimately weighed all of that and gave a reasoned opinion as to why the distinction here matters the distinction in the board's mind under the board speak to why even if there is a distinction now xander board addressed the arguments that bt attempted to use to carry its burden of proof and then it addressed the actors response of arguments under the case our framework and in so doing came to the conclusion that the claim was not obvious and i think this is a point this is limitation a j doesn't show up in any form and claim what part of the problem that d d has here on the board grappled with it was they never really explained why they thought what your honor just said was was the case because they only referred back to a claim that doesn't have this limitation in it did what it was supposed to do and adjudicated the petition as filed if bt had wished to make different arguments it should have but unfortunately we don't see the level of detail your honor set forth in the papers below so i'm still puzzle the remote pharmacist says you're not authorized to proceed please that's not the sort of system that's contemplated by the claims here contemplated by the claims here is a system that will ensure that that happens alexander it has to be a mechanical system as opposed to an individual telling them to stop correct this is an apparatus claim the alexander is a rudimentary essentially it's a way to have pharmacists in big cities overseeing non pharmacists working remotely because there was a shortage of pharmacists in the early two thousand so it's a way to use that web camera which at the time was relatively simple need well for example the five hundred and seventy nine had and has some screenshots that show what the system looks like to the non pharmacist operator and demonstrate how the system ensures that that person does not continue on with with the web camera allows a pharmacist to watch what's going on we don't really know what real time collaboration tool is that we certainly don't have a disclosure in alexander about any system elements that would permit the system to ensure that the non pharmacist doesn't continue well except that the pharmacist tells them to stop right but in that scenario the evidence isn't on pharmacist doesn't have to stop that's where we get again back to the testimony of dr young who said  didn't stop wouldn't he i'm sorry i missed the st part disappointed if he didn't stop there possibly very possibly but there's also the possibility in the in the prior timeframe that he ended up doing everything correctly and proceeded without verification because for example he would have done it a dozen times before and then the non pharmacist ultimately says you did it correctly but you should have you should have waited for my verification but again alexander is not a system based disclosure it doesn't actually prohibit the non pharmacist from pharmacy practice i see my time is expired answer the question please continue ok but i'm trying to get into a treatise on pharmacy practice essentially the alexander system is a way to create a distributed replication of what would happen in a real pharmacy and so in a real pharmacy in the timeframe essentially a label is printed and given to the non pharmacist and label says i need this volume of this drug and the non farm is then does whatever the non pharmacist does to construct that drug formulation and the pharmacist watches over the person's shoulder depending on the kind of drug sometimes it's mixing a powder with water which is very simple sometimes it's a sterile pharmaceutical which is then does it step by step presumably your appendix system can simply refused to supply a nd step if the st step wasn't performed correctly promises wouldn't even know what to do that's how he would be stopped i think that's correct that's one way that he could be stopped yes there are there are other examples in the specification for example if an appropriate barcode is not scanned the system may not permit the operator to continue by withholding information or withholding  sort of the process from the operator there are several ways described in the past and what you articulated is absolutely one of them but others involve you know system based things like barcode scanners or weight scales or image processing verification that sort of  decide not to stop that certainly is possible but obviously the converse is true that you could have a catastrophic error in some kind of a very sensitive drug like a cancer treatment drug an error that may seem harmless could become catastrophic depending on the  amplify this point about the pharmacist giving the instruction not to proceed i mean this is what the alexander embodiment is about it's about supervising the work and verifying it as it is being performed or not verifying as it's being performed if someone it can just move on to the next step and you also have you know a quick man there's apparatus there there's there's not just the telephone as was pointed out there is the real time collaboration tool talk about providing the feedback via the same collaboration software so you know you're talking about an operator who is receiving a message here from the pharmacist the person who is in control as a sort of legal authority to be authorizing this in real time as it's being performed telling them whether that staff is verified and we think that is a straightforward disclosure here of the system claim and you know there is more detail in our let me ask you do you think that what the board was looking for here another piece of prior art that seems possible that there could be one out there of some sort of system that has a hard stop you know you have to do one thing before you can go to the next drought were they looking for you to combine it with that person of ordinary creativity to an ordinary inferencing creative steps would read exactly what's being happened happening here eyes as accomplishing the same thing as rendering obvious that the idea that you would have to be part of the system and we think alexander is disclosing the system here in the real time collaboration tool but even if it were just a message you're just talking about the ordinary creativity of going back and forth from one to another and i'll just point out that you know alexander column fourteen there is more discussion about servers there at the bottom of it it talks about custom software you know if it is not purely the sort of dollars of our experts declaration to make this connection here between alexander's teaching and the idea that each step would need to be verified before the pharmacy staff member could continue and petition claim one which doesn't have a system element what was cited there was the same alexander disclosure i mean i think the best way to think about it is you have more than sufficient evidence in the claim chart for claim one and then when you get to claim eight cross referencing the exact same passage of alexander that we're talking about and is backed by this portion of the younger  tell me if i'm i understood you were making kind of two alternative arguments the st being the st in blue being you should reverse but a minimum remained in great you kind of flip the order is i recall and start with you should argument to was well know you should really be verse that if you don't you know and i'm misunderstanding your argument i thought they were sort of like two alternatives you know reversed but at the minimum or email and my rule no sorry if i'm if i'm creating confusion here that that's correct we don't think that that any of the explanations that they the board could have been relying on can support its opinion so that would be reversal if if there's if you're not agreeing with us on one of those points we think that it wouldn't be proper to review those points under substantial evidence standard if it's when it's not clear which one ok thank you your time has expired thank you we thank both in the cases