united states for other people for the federal service now made please the court on page two of our opening brief we have laid out three issues that are before you today the first issue of do with whether ground or i thought part of your argument was or the issue here was that priority date and written description of the intertwined were actually separate grounds that is correct your honor the court below conflated sections one twenty and one twelve and the i t c the focus was on whether or not we can get the two thousand and three date because there was a prior from the zero to six applicants from the zero two six applications because there was a prior art called the sixty protocol that that acknowledges that if we're talking about two thousand and twelve then we have the priority we have the written description support because the original we filed claims issue with the patent and so there is not only written description support but the word be written description support so everybody has been on the same page but that's that issue was not discussed much first of all there's not much to discuss because the two sets of claims are mirror images of each other but more importantly there was another prior art before is there some place during here before that chad where you pointed out the we believe we get we have all written description support for these claims regarding transmission of securities dating all the way back to our very first non provisional application two thousand through two thousand and three but in any event at a minimum we have written descriptions with the i do see your honor and we have brief that on page twenty seven through twenty nine of our opening brief and also if i may draw your attention to a p p x zero one seven six or rather a p p i to zero one seven five which is the initial at least in the context of that invalidity challenge there was any argument raised on your side that well even if we lose our written description for purposes of  six discloses we most certainly have written description support for the as of the twenty twelve filing dates so therefore you cannot invalidate our claims for lack of written scripture ok so even if you were to disagree with what we have said in our opening brief and the evidence that we provided that we did bring that to the edges attention we have cited cases that about the discretionary aspect of the waiver so for example in our reply brief on page nine we have cited the harris case long island case and the interactive gift case and also we have we have mentioned the in re elton case which says they have the burden of proof and for situation we have  the there is a presumption of the lady of our patents they have never made a prime official case with any specificity that the original claims of the twenty filed patent application do not provide written description support for the issue claim they generally mention one twelve but most of the time they discussed one twenty which one paul is a component of one twenty as the rife in case teaches us but they never made a prime official case so even if you were to disagree with us that we were not specific enough in telling the ale jay that you originally filed claims and the issue claims are identical and therefore we have written description support and we believe you said enough and as the court will preach to all for reply brief so for example on seven six five there is this there is a sentence from in our pre hearing brief where he said except for the claims of the first about a third of the way down the page starting in the middle yes michael i just but except for the claims the ass file and then we go to a p p x four seven seven five four yes and also if you are if i may well i'm finding this one thing i would like to point out is the commission overruled the a j with respect to the sixty protocol and the commission then came back and  issues modified on the other issues and there was no prejudice cost to the other side by the fact that the issue of the twenty fall priority dates surface not they found all the prior one twenty so that so we don't understand why the commission found that the issue was waived is yours you are into your rebuttal time if you want to take a minute and say something about the merits of the written description question later  the claim requirements for the security so the written description in two thousand and twelve with respect to the over two six who we have laid out are the claim limitations and why we believe there is support e the all the other components of the claim are all in the or two successive occasion the the point of contention is the communication protocol is one security key sent the first time a response received and a second and a response received or are all boats securities he sent at the same time and the the court below found that that was that is not clear enough in the old two six patent application however this is not a situation where there are a million different possibilities everybody acknowledges the securities and multiple exchanges securities are disclosed in the all to specification so the only possibility is you send one and then you send the second or you send both at the same time so he won just those two possibilities blaise marks are not needed as one of the cases mentioned because this is not a situation where you have a million chemical compounds in a million possibilities of putting the formula together there are only two possibilities and may please the court militia's reply does not challenge the substantial evidence supporting the commission's determination that five claim limitations three or four which appear in all of the asserted claims lack written description support in the waived as the commission said it did and argument that written description here was provided by the claims filed in twenty twelve in the two applications that led to these two patents never mind  two six right so the commission did not abuse of discretion in finding that neology simply did not raise its original claims argument before the l g a and in its petition for a commission review and here original claims is a testimony neither of those passages actually states that neology was relying on the claim language for a two thousand and twelve filing date those statements were simply to state that well if we're looking at written description claims could be part of the written description support but neither one of them or you i or catches expert admitted that there is written description support from the cl matter which was way for mainly bad neology simply never argue to the j at the twenty twelve claims fall into that category of maybe not a large category but not an empty category where claims can provide their own written descriptions for well the statements that neology quotes from and on it's reply brief on page three simply does not support lack ogy adequately raised an argument that claim language itself provides adequate range for some support for two thousand and twelve while and and the ologies briefs marchin no evidence to support this argument site no statement that it has made to clearly say that it's presented such an argument before the l g a you like to point out that even after the a l j found these claims invalid for lack of written description  and that neology could not claim a two thousand and three priority date in its commission's petition for review and never raised an original claim for a two thousand and twelve claims argument at that time too it was only after the commission on requested the parties to brief based on the record evidence and arguments made before the l g a whether the a r j i conflated the two issues that neology then presented arguments that you know the a r j should have looked at the claim language and other underlying disclosures can as your merits question some of the references to testimony was not credible because prior to the hearing at his deposition he had said these very same exchange keys do not mean that he did not know whether those were actually exchanged between a reader minder and so given this conflicting testimony the commission and they already determined that is just my just not simply not credible and on the face of all the other record evidence including intervener some expert testimony in testimony and looking at the specification it's well within the the testimony supporting the written description shall i say the word exchange met  when used in reference to exchange keys if you didn't mean reference keys were moving back and forth ordinary skill would not know whether exchange refers to transmitting keys to between a reader and a tag there's nothing that's tells describes to one of ordinary skill this exchange is actually between the reader in the tag as required by the claims but also that there's this could be an exchange of data between the reader and tag and not really change of the actual keys the security keys as the claims require so just using the word exchange key exact wording is application and where the applicant added the claim language security keys for the very first time and for support this is at appendix four two two seven for support of this newly added security queue imitation the applicant stated that the present application teaches a security management you know the checks and validates cryptographic keys there are sent to a cryptographic block the cryptographic locks stores the keys and these keys are checked know this response can't rely on exchange keys for disclosure of these security keys for all of the evidence the commission even asked the parties to brief during review of the  this question suppose just for purposes of this question that this issue had not been waived what is the argument that you would make for why th were the originally filed claim that's being talked about as the possible basis is very general and very functional and that wasn't going to be enough this doesn't seem to be that kind of  patent talks about that there are there are there would be a written scripts and issue there but you're out of court this was because this was waived six times over and only got to for those waivers it was never there was never any expert testimony by their side or they were accusing of fringy under this court's precedent several cases if the thing that you're accusing a friend would post predate your claims your invalid over those coins and so it was it was an oversight that they  their two six application because if they didn't as their own witnesses admitted the claims would have been invalid  first forced hearing brief initial post hearing brief where it states that the bottom force claims based on the specification that has been used throughout the security keypad and family beginning with the or to six application and continuing through the applications that have been filed after the over four four and four three six patents have never received it when first rejection on the basis of lack of  the time can you say this address one point that i think i remember from the government's brief the government defends the the commission finding of waiver and then goes on to make a couple of maybe really one point kind of on the merits of this two thousand and twelve claim issue and the point that i think is sticking in my mind as you said repeatedly these are continuation applications not continuation in part applications so you're not really well positioned to say something was in that twenty twelve claims that it wasn't already in the zero two six application and and in order for this concentration on that two thousand and twelve claim to make any difference there would have to be a difference between those two things and then it wouldn't be a continuation of you addressing well you on a continuation applications are filed all the time where the originally filed claims of the continuations are different from the preceding case but they're still called continuations and the original we file claims are still considered part of the specification with with respect to  gave them a chance to say why in this case you originally filed paying claims which everybody agrees are identical to the issue claims you just twenty two well my apologies why the twenty twelve points which are identical there are situations were cases talked about guinness species what is actually mentioned in the original the file claims horses what they what you were into at the end if there is a difference then sometimes there might not be support but this is a textbook case where there's one hundred percent support the twenty proclaim so identical to the issue of claims and and one one more thing i would like to mention is that the commissions and the ale g s approach to art reference or system analyzing the old two six specification is very different and inconsistent with respect to snodgrass they stretch every maybe into all the possibilities for example with capital t a g there are only fine mentions of that term as compared to forty six mentions of arbitration number in that specification but the p tab got it exactly right that there is no no where there is disclosure in the snodgrass such vacation as to what the capital th e does in the reader transponder interaction but there they say well this is possible that is possible the experts said this but the specification doesn't say anything no take a look at the all the experts agree in this case i mean maybe there weren't the same expert testimony in the i p r position but in this particular case if both experts agree that there