and it has a date on it that i still have to show something or other ten or twenty years later now you and i think i think when your times you will you will have the actual the actual publication but if you introduce just a printout with a critic limitation but i'm talking about the citation of seventy columns of references which looks like the africans were trying to obscure the nature of the prior  art and not comply with the duty of disclosure you want you want to we don't we don't think that that was the case at all and actually what we are was seventy columns of reference to scientists you know and i can't help the examiner four zero one was publicly accessible prior to the critical day for apple introduced evidence relating to the r f c practices overnight it's presented no evidence whatsoever that it was not publicly available at or excessive oil as of the date on the face of the reference itself work in the not reaching any of the issues that my colleague was talking about at the end relating to claimed instruction that only applies to ad until proceedings need not reach any of the issues that relate to av just very briefly on the r c twenty four a one of course is a request for comments on a standard proposal by the internet engineering task force a well known standard setting organization for internet protocols that reference has been standard setting document is for the public to be able to use it to facilitate interoperability as this court is recognising kyocera requests for comment spice terms invites timely public feedback the board rely relied on the in the  corroborating document by the internet engineering task force that talks about its protocols and procedures and if no evidence to the contrary and there was no evidence offered to the contrary and there's reason for that judge laurie because  date and indeed you can look at a variety of corroborating things that confirm that oath which was available to the board and there was no evidence no evidence whatsoever to the contrary if the court has questions on this issue of course i'm happy to most focused on which was the issue of of whether or not the board of changed theories with respect to two of the claims of fact only two of the claims claim four and twenty six of the eight seven zero five   it would be obvious person of ordinary skill in the art that you could use the invention with a server after all a server is just a computer that provides content or information to a client device that asked for it it's a concept  as computing if you load a web page that information when you look on the internet it's coming from a web server or if you download music or video it's coming from a server and it's the board observed the user specifically contemplates that the network devices  doesn't doesn't really follow and i didn't really hear my colleague addressing that significantly today his main focus was on the broadband limitation which effects as a said earlier claims for a twenty six and the only challenge that they've made so t boards finding that those two claims are obvious because they argue that the board somehow changed theories from institution to the final written decision but the fact is nothing changed but you know we didn't argue in here and see if we argued in our petition we made the same argument consistently in that titian in our reply and it's what the border the border instituted on the same references beazer r c twenty four one and relying on arguments about paragraph eighty eight of professor thomas e o and that's what the board relied on in its final written decision what the board did in its final that decision was walk through the fairy argument that we had made in our petition relying on the beezer disclosure relying on the reasoning and professor chomsky is a declaration paragraph eighty the same thing that we relied on our petition the same thing the board relied on and that institution and it walked through it did its analysis and concluded at the end of its analysis it said none of this requires inherent c and that's not a change of the what predicts it's really arguing about is some antics that teaching at issue the disclosure of using a cable modem with a high speed cable network is all in the single reference of that's exactly what's gone on here were relied on the same evidence the same argument and it ultimately agreed with our argument and simply at the end of the day rejected for nexus attempt to characterize that as being an inherent issue certainly no question that f was given the history here i'm happy to answer questions of the court has them with respect to the remaining issues going to the direct limitation or abseil suffice to say i think that the board is certainly entitled to conclude that there was no clear and unambiguous disclaimer when he couldn't get a straight answer from frenetic so as to what was purportedly n and what is purportedly out in terms of direct and indirect limitations and of course the board had before it a more significant record of the history of these proceedings including proceedings and reexamined which for an ethics itself had argued that that it had not done any sort of disclaimer but is a set of the outside court need not rea newman if if you were to think that there had been a disclaimer that should be a force despite her ex's inability to explain to the board and its inconsistent positions in the litigation and in front of the board in front of the patent office but if you were to think that there were a disclaimer and that the word direct should be read in first you there is the alternative argument that adding tail itself discloses direct communication second of the arguments relying on the beezer reference of course are entirely independent of this and so with respect to the beezer reference if you if you agreed with us with respect to the six claim limitations then that would be dispositive and it wouldn't matter what the claim construction was because the claim destruction was not at issue in the proceedings that involve the beezer reference and even if you disagreed with respect to the sex it wouldn't matter as to all the other claims that would be would remain invalidated by these are so there really with respect to this direct issue i judge you mean that really two different sets of alternative arguments the first is that and felt self discloses direct communication for the reason claims are all invalid under beazer and the proceedings that involved beazer and that invalidated all these claims under these are not the goal of this claim construction issue at all so there are essentially two alternative arguments that do not implicate the alleged disclaimer well respect to the argument about the broadband what the reason that apple actually argued inherits because if the court looks at the if the court looks on the on page