circuit that causes a change in resistance and therefore impacts the current voltage running for the circuit those changes are identified and used to detect the location of a fault and i hadn't prosecution history and  the low the high level is the block where it's higher up above ok in other words it has a higher frequency is that the idea no it isn't because it's a square wave that likely refers whether reference qualifies as a kind of publication whether it was publicly sensible that we look at the facts and circumstances in which case separately in this case we have three declarations from three different witnesses all talking about the same paper the  board made that observation but there's not a case from this court that says the actual paper it's the physical copy that was handed out at the conference but it's  post and the evidence was disputed by the other side because they said that the post for the nd hand quote nd hand reproduction of an internet is group but that the court said that wasn't  the printed publication of the public accessibility requirement because there was witness testimony saying this is a copy of the post that i created and that was on the website and that's what we have in this case we have m get all three witnesses talking about the exact same paper this is what was presented and made available to participants at the conference mr i want to reiterate judge for all of your getting back to the discussion you with judge newman and judge louis on this point this quiet issue really strikes me as a situation where a careful good safe trier of fact could look at this and come out you the way i think an argument could be made from what you're saying that when you put everything together the reasonable conclusion is that  reference was at the conference and that it was there on the other hand one could also say well you know there is this gap there and can we really appellate court and say the board was wrong to take one view namely the gas as opposed to the other view a reasonable inference on the other hand the conference proceedings that were put on the scene and given to compress participants at the time have to look at that through the lens of what the burden of proof was at the in the i p r proceedings and here it was hamamatsu that bore the burden of proof on invalidity it bores the burden of coming forth with doc one that was available at a conference in july two thousand and six but what we actually look at when we look at the evidence is there is no testimony and there is no evidence that and that's what relying on as the prior art reference that was somehow made publicly available or published either at the conference or sometime before the november th critical date the only evidence  was published by and if you look at the abstract the publication date is november th two thousand so the only thing publication date for the paper that hamas is relying on is the november go on to say there was you know i received a cd rom at a conference with a paper but he never makes that connection that's where the evidence really got it he never said that the true and correct copy of exhibit b is exactly what i printed from the cd rom or i tested just exactly what was on the cd on that i received in july and in fact he couldn't say that because if you look at if we look at the proper corrected appendix for thirty three you'll see that each publication date again which is november th two thousand and six which is like so everything that we have has a statement to be a close question and i'm going to sort of turn it around a little bit if the board had come out the other way and had said we recognize that there is this gap here which you've just focused on understandably yet we feel that in the totality of the circumstances and looking at all the evidence we can conclude as an inference that in fact  the article was on the cd rom was distributed in july of two thousand and six would that be a conclusion that would be lacking in substantial  evidence it would depend on the totality of the circumstances but i will point out that there is a slight difference when you see the situation because when we talk about substantial evidence on the appellate court level and you reviewing the board's decision at the appellate court on substantial evidence you're asking whether a reasonable fact finder could have arrived at the board's decision but you're also asking could they have a arrived at that decision through the underlying burden of proof and the underlying burden of proof rests with hamas so all things being equal hamas who has to tip the scale one direction so even i think  have the burden they could submit no evidence and say that it is absolutely hamas starting to come forth with evidence and if it doesn't and it doesn't meet the weight of a preponderance of evidence then it fails as an evidentiary matter and i think that's exactly what happened here and because we do have a hard situation i think with the burden the proof and with the substantial evidence standard being that a reasonable fact finder could have arrived we're asking whether looking at all the evidence was available publicly available before the critical thank you and less than the panel has any questions specific to use a context of the evidence that was presented below there's no question my mind that the preponderance of evidence standard was satisfied because what we have again are three defamations from three witnesses talking about the same paper giving consistent testimony and no evidence going the other way so it's not even the fifty one dollars versus forty nine percent question it's all of the evidence is going to show that this paper was presented at the conference that's not an issue  thousand and six and it was also published to the web site on two thousand and six but when mr tan attached that copy the correct copy to his declaration he said this is what was on the cd rom and there's no evidence in the record that