was fundamentally in error the red route read page twenty nine dollars admits that the only issue before this court when it comes to the one that work one device claim limitation is express anticipation not inherent see the board's decision and both of those petitions applied the wrong test the court or the board applied in re baxter koichi like literally all standing for the proposition that the dispositive question regarding anticipation is whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the prior preferences teaching that every the wrong test that is grounds alone for reversal of the board's decision but even under the proper test there was not substantial evidence that that element existed or was taught by menard request for a status at they and the response have to be transmitted on the same network that's in every single one of the claims were three parts to twelve and that claims that there is an additional claim limitation that relates to being transmitted received by the same device so that's the only real dispute with regard to those to all of the claims and with regard to that if you look at the record as a whole at most you could say that the record is an big s that said if you focus on the extrinsic evidence the extrinsic evidence suggests that there's not one network on which those transmissions are made and in fact to show that there is one network one world position is that the pager and the pager network the two a pager network disclosed in paragraph fifty of minard discloses this concept of one network and it does not if you actually turn the language that one world technology is relying on is a language at the very bottom of the paragraph that says the album signal e g indicating the door position may be transmitted to the pager on a pre  determined schedule or upon inquiry and that's the key language or upon a change of position of the door actuator at any time one technology is taking the position that the upon inquiry is met by the pager network that is only the pager that is going to make that inquiry and that is not consistent with figure eight of the status if you turn to figure eight figure eight shows the process by which the garage door opener communicates with the user and if you look at your age the process being disclosed is a process that is fundamentally different than the process taught figure eight discloses something much different it actually discloses more of a notification or alert system so if you look at figure eight it starts with block three hundred and sixty where the very st step is establishing a communication channel and if you look at all the rest of the steps the other is that start employed once the communication channel is established so if you step through it the very st communication between the of the door position but both parties agree that is a predicate to everything that's happening in figure eight you must st determine the status of the garage door you must have the status to actually transnet so that must occur outside of this figure and must occur before step three hundred and sixty where the communication channel is established between the cager and the garage door opener so for that reason alone the intrinsic r suggests that the pager cannot be sending the status signal and then are sending the status requests and then receiving this that a signal on a single network even and inherently were before the court which is not the the board got the test wrong even as to inherent c and in fact the board's opinion suggests that there is a bigger issue brewing that there is some legal legal framework rentis a patient st of all the board apply this inference test from in re baxter and the context of express anticipation and not inher anticipation suggesting there may be some confusion there but with regard to inherent c itself if the inference test is not bounded by the necessary disclosure test then the improper of the test that was applied was improper and so there's some there's some confusion there because in if you were look at the boards decisions the board decision only relies on part of the test and suggests that if there is just an inference to one of skill in the art that the try and meet the elements of the claim elements of the nine hundred and seventy seven patent obviousness is not before this court was improper for the board to it was a it was up before the board so it's improper for them to do that it's also not before this court it would be improper under sassed for that to be a ground for the court to consider and it's a it's a ground that one world technology has waived the only other issue before this court is whether the t c p ip network interface limitation in clay nine whether that was present minority or whether the board's decision on that was correct determine whether that element was necessarily present so on that ground alone that binding should be reversed beyond that there is no substantial evidence in the record to support the board's decision say i want to address very briefly the red brief and a few of the issues that i noted in the read brief st one world technology actually repeats the board's misstatements of law and relies on the same inference test that i've been referring to they also misrepresent the record at read brief twenty eight to twenty nine they truncate dr davis as testimony he was went to c g i as expert in order to make their point they also  truncate chamberlain's counsel's arguments in order to make their points we've address all of that a great brief sixty nine and page fourteen they also invite this court to ignore blackletter administrative law and make the actual findings in the  thank you may it please the court your honor and of the rope well reasoned opinion the board considered and rejected the arguments raised by chamberlain choosing instead to credit the testimony of one of the expert substantial evidence supports the board findings and its decision should be from obviously there's a clear disagreement between my friend and myself over the standard for anticipation as we understand it standard for express anticipation anticipation is a question viewed from perspective one of skill in the art and the question for its president as a patient is whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer that every claim element is disclosed my friend quarrels with that standard al she did not cite any case for you that suggested that there was a different test for express anticipation didn't cite any case that said it is improper to consider anticipation from the perspective of one of skill in the art and that's precisely what the the board looked at the disclosure of minard including paragraph omitting the plain limitation doesn't have to be in the in the prior off absolutely or it certainly does need to be disclosed in the prior art but we ask look at that part from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as we look at virtually everything and that is law and so when we look at this earlier issue when we look at the menard reference we don't simply look i believe my friend is suggesting a four corners rule that it has to be apparent to lay person on the face of the reference in order for there to be express anticipation and there is no authority that supports that expressing dissipate and the prior art is viewed from the perspective of want to ordinary skill in the art here feedback to indicate the position of the door to the user and when are specifically notes the problem of users that have driven out of view and need feedback on the position of the door were stepped forward said if we understand this inquiry comes analysis of an hour wasn't limited to paragraph fifty if you look on appendix page twenty eight you'll see the board quotes menard noting menard makes clear that its system allows remote control  management of single or multiple door openers using a wire or a wireless communications device including a cellular telephone a pager a personal digital assistant a computer or other device that communicates using a network would have understood the requesting and receiving the door position status are basic steps for operating the door remotely i'm i don't understand my friend's argument with respect to figure eight the board consider this you'll see its analysis on appendix pages twenty nine to thirty three included that nothing in figure eight was inconsistent with the page or sending the inquiry both experts testified about this i eight but all of those three triggers for the inquiry and the transmission of the status position quote would result in this flow chart being exercised at the borderline on that tax money in finding that menard disclosed the prinz mission receipt of a status request over the same network unless the panel has questions i'd like to turn briefly to claim nine and that's the generating a web page accessible from the internet inherently servers in use at the time of the invention or the time mart that did not support and use t c p minard it's presley teaches not just the internet as a whole but generating web pages accessible from the internet or a w a p server to generate stated can be accessed using the internet browser or expert testified that generating data accessing data using the internet for us or and generating web pages requires use of the t c p ip interface the board remodeled thank you your honor in re baxter stands for the proposition that expert testimony under anticipation can be used to explain a reference but not expand the reference and that's what one world technology is trying to do here they're using conclusory expert testimony to try and expand the reference in capital in this limitation that the request for a status and the response is transmitted over the same network there is no express disclosure of that only two stats st on one channel the pager will receive this status so it will receive for example whether the garage door is open or closed and then on the other channel it can submit a command to close or open on the other channel a request for the garage door to be closed or open or to change status and what the reason i think the figure eight is so dispositive of this is that both parties agree that the last sentence in figure if he talking about the status inquiry that that has to occur before you go through the steps of figure eight if you look at petitioners reply to the is that appendix six hundred and seventy four figure eight however is limited to the later operations of receiving door position information and control in the door from a remote art would have understood it that the status and hurry necessarily occurs before determining and transmission ing transit determining and transmitting the door status over the network connected to the garage door opener so the pager cannot be requesting status updates when it's not even connected so the intrinsic record itself suggests that the pager cannot be