be frank your honor we haven't argued the claims separately in so much as we've argued the reference to separately because it's a different reference that's being relied upon so i can't say there's anything in our papers that would necessarily conference in san jose they describe the same system but the teachings are different they are not simply going to separate copies of the same reference they they actually contain  paper on page thirteen forty six of the appendix in the right hand column and essentially what we're told is the user starts a browser  provides the user id the browser contacts the middleware server and begins a new session using that user id and if there's any previous session state that has been saved at the server  it can retrieve that session state if it exists in the board's decision the word decided that when the user again takes this action on the second device to resume the session and here we're told that that slogging on that somehow this was specifying the second device in our point really is would lead one to the conclusion that identifying the user is identifying the device they are they are in fact different thing the other issue in this case that is raised by the by the dish network folks in their papers is that the court has explicit selection and what happens in the fan helsinki reference is you know the user logs on to an account and is provided with presumably list or other indication that hey there are some you've got some prior session histories available and the user can download those of your peer she wants to but there's no indication that the user specified the device that they were going to be logging in from for example it's simply the user id that is associated with the session not the device so i think that was the point we were trying to make did that address your question but i would say that the board reached the correct decision there when it discussed the bates reference because the board correctly observed that in bates the figure seven environment shows what happens  browsing session and that includes transmission of the session histories and the board correctly reasoned that the session that is recited in the claim is  transactions between communicating devices during a particular time period the some page eight of the position but the bronzing session is something different this is speeches but they said that th  i think that with more was saying your honor is that the time period that is the browsing session is the session in the context of bates and this  after a period of time the session ends even though the browsing session continues i'm not sure what you're referring to your honor well i'm sure the other side of one is that i've got that address but otherwise has complained to talk about the merits of the challenge issue and our appeal well you can address whatever procedural questions we asked already so just to repeat them no no i don't know if you still have this question so with respect to the overlap between our another statement but i think that was no accident congress recognized that as part of the bargain the patentee is going to face and literally challenges from both the public and especially from individual companies that it accuses  those those companies have an incentive to bring ability challenges to go to go pursue prior art searches that perhaps the patent office didn't even consider during expert a prosecution that's a natural consequence of having a patent is having to defend a multiple challenges when when they're brought and a pita happens now you know become obviously a popular venue to resolve those challenges in the first instance so i think that peta is just working within the confines that congress has created here which which w different record their expert was cross examined separately in our proceeding so he gave different testimony that was before the board in our proceeding as opposed to the other two so there are there are some important differences so let me just bring up so as the first as the claims twenty three twenty five  so there are various times and dates when this browser session data can get transferred and one of them is idle period so the question that was put to dr mahathir a drama at seventeen ninety five through ninety six of the joint appendix question moving to figure five in your view what is meant by the term at idle period so we're asking him to interpret the reference for us as a person of skill in the art the answer was i don't period is usually configured in the computer that if you are if there is no interaction for let's the claim session was over the transfer then occurs at that point this idle period which is after the session is over that's it that's all that's required i was the only missing element the board found in bates was that the transfer didn't happen after the session was over and that's because there's really there's no there's no claim construction issue that's been argued or preserved here the board very carefully analyzed that claim found that specifying is intentionally a broad claim that patent he claimed this very broadly they didn't with just sort of the inherent obvious thing that happens here when you're going to move to a new computer to then get your session so you know the way phantom works is you start you start doing some session at one computer then you decide you're going to move to some other computer so you you  first computer and at that point the session goes into what he calls his middleware so it's some computer running up in the network somewhere then you move to your other computer and you want to then go and get that information back from that middleware server at that time with the what you do is model at the second device a specified answer second device is specified at some point in time yes in the poll model that was a concession that the patters own expert made that the board relied on frankly there's just no evidence for any other conclusion you there's there's no evidence in the there was another basis in fact helsinki that the board did focus on which is this notion of device profiling i'd like to just mention briefly so here the notion is that in fan helsinki you might be on a laptop you might be on the handheld oh you might be on a desktop these are all different types of devices and this middleware server can actually know information about what kind of device you're on to help it provide the information to you maybe it would reformat that information if you were on a you know phone instead of a computer it might take some of the data out fan talks about this in a couple places and it refers to that first of this concept as both device profiling or presentation conversion it for instance at  that you know that show was converting data for the particular client device requesting it so therefore point is that you must know something you must have specified something about the second device in order to perform that type of conversion of data so both of those so that certainly substantial evidence in the record that would support the board's conclusion that specifying is taught in fan helsinki gets its you know the second devices specified in at least those two ways both because you have to know what device to send the data to and because you have to know what type of device it is that i'm sending the data to to make that work and questions we don't we want questions ok tha argument is at page thirty two of their decision question or does not account for the actual disclosure bates indicating that he session would occur during the browsing time excuse me the browsing session says doesn't happen if the entirety of figure seven occurs during the browsing session which bates clearly says happens collimate lines fifty five through fifty seven that includes recognition of the idle period so the idle period taking place doesn't negate the browsing session in fact the browsing session one of the things that is happening is it's looking for the idle period  and so then would execute the process that shown in figure seven and that was the board's rationale for rejecting that position judge newman you beats better look for during the browsing session and correctly observe that on those all faith place during the browse and session and so the sequence of event