please the court christine i can't get kelley on behalf of appellant for the guides the board in this case aired when it failed its mandate to decide the patentability of every claim limitation on the merit and pointed to evidence in the record supporting its decision in this case the board observed during the oral hearing that comcast had the freedom to present a preponderance of evidence that  discloses a set top box comcast ask the parties or sorry the board asked the parties to address the issue comcast did not at the hearing point to any evidence in the record but instead presented what was sort of boxes in the specification at figure two and computer convergence environments are an alternative that is figure three and we should win on that basis so st the board is has mischaracterized and  citing generally only the patent owners response and ignoring what happened at the hearing the premise of the board's decision is wrong if we go to the next paragraph which is what i think your question was originally getting at having considered the evidence we agree with petition er the board then goes on there is a string site none of the evidence cited is explained as to why it supports the board's decision these citations are to the petitioners briefs they do  cited in the petitioners brief but don't identify why that evidence supports the decision if you look at the parent thought a call that follows the string cite that parents got a call is representative of the types of things the board that is not evidence that a computer is a set top box that is an argument that assumes its premise that a computer is a set top box it identifies the computer and then says parent that ecclesiastes is a set top box and then goes on to talk about the control circuitry that paragraph and and so you know if we go on to the rest of the of the paragraph of the board's final written decision this paragraph being the entirety of the board's analysis that paragraph goes on then to talk about television viewing functionality it does not say ever that one of skill in the art would understand a computer to literally be a set top  would agree with you that issue would be waived but that was not counsel's response counsel's response was yes we dispute this and the board correctly recognized in the hearing that even though roe v did not raise the issue in its brief the burden nonetheless r d on the petitioner to articulate the evidence and nonetheless remained on the board to decide that will guscott discloses a set top box that was the board's stated reason for asking the question and asking the parties to address  if you look to appendix it starts i believe on appendix six   starts the very bottom of that page and then at the top of page six hundred and eighty three dollars that is where rove's counsel states just briefly on the topic of set top box relating back to the boards previously ask if you go to the next paragraph the only evidence of record as to the definition of set top box is entirely consistent with figures too so i think as an initial matter the board could dispatch the will ga ski grounds on that aspect of the claims alone some of this is a little difficult to understand because it comes out of context he's referring back to a previous exchange between the board and council for comcast so when he says what he's referring to figure two and figure three  comcast already had an exchange in which they discussed that figure two explicitly labels a set top box figure three discusses a t v computer convergence environment and figure two is what is for comcast so what happened was rove's counsel essentially stood up and said remember that conversation you just had where you identified this problem between figure two in figure three you are correct we agree with your problem and we should win was and so counsel for rovio sensually said what you just said your honour's you're absolutely correct and he didn't go on to then restate it so that it would be in the record in his words he said yes figure two labels the set top box figure three does not summarizing the conclusion that the board had previously drawn then went on to say there is no evidence of record that the set top box is anything other than figure two which as the board had already stated is not  grounds on that aspect of the claims alone meaning because a set top box is not in the claims row v should win and in doing so that was enough to preserve the issue as one that was not conceded and the board forgot although what ravis council then put into the record you know may not have been sufficient on its own to rebut anything the patent owner doesn't have an obligation under magnum oil the patent owner does not have an obligation to rebut something as long as he did not concede it and the board acknowledged that there was a problem in the record and if the burden is on them to resolve it on the merits pointing to specific evidence and that did not happen and you know i think at no point even if the board asked a question during oral hearing at no point does it shift the obligation probably between one million five hundred and two thousand and it's just very difficult to escape the conclusion that they have to count was trying to bury it didn't cite regard have a lot of different patent applications all related to similar technologies and i know that there is an obligation when you have multiple patents that are related to site all of the  accumulate when you have large patent portfolios because if you don't cite all of the prior art references you cited for another patent that has your name on it then the implication is that while you purposely didn't cite it i can tell you though that the reference was expressly discussed by the examiner in his examination of the parent application for this patent and was distinguished on the basis that or on one of the bases that they and well reasoned with detailed citations to what dossier by the board that was on appendix page thirty four dollars he testified the computer one time is a set top box because it converts content signals such as cable television signals to an input si today and written knowledge that there was at least a paragraph on the issue in truth there are three pages of discussion on the set top box issuing them and so this is not a circumstance where the board failed to provide a rationale and shifted the burden at rovio alleges with comcast counsel at the i p r and said that we failed to meet our burden i was incorrect if you turn to appendix paid sixty want to sixty two you will see an exchange from one peter judge to comcast council asking for clarification on the differences between for her to but even if those comments had appeared in a brief earlier i submit they were insufficient to preserve an issue for appeal because as my opposing counsel just mentioned they were difficult to understand in discussing the meaning of a set top box with my colleague here just said to this court is very similar to what comcast said below they provided the means plus function analysis they have told you that anything that performs the functions of tuning television and relaying those signals to a processor is a set top box because it provides the function of that control circuitry if comcast wanted to do a means plus function analysis for the term set top box then they could have done so there was no means plus function analysis done instead comcast position was that we got skis computer one hundred and ten is literally a set top box and that is not a proper construction of the word set top box a set top box just like a television just like a computer that is the name of a household object we all know what a set top box is it's the little box that sits nearby the television  ravi could have said that but under no no robey didn't but groovy did point the board up on the board asking at the oral hearing ravi did point the board to the difference between figure two in figure three and if you look at the portion of the alternatively these functions may be integrated into an advanced television receiver personal computer television or other suitable arrangement the specification specifically says that a set top box is an alternative to a c convergence environment a set top box arrangement that is the name of a particular structure and a set top box is not literally a computer those are two different objects they have two different names and by saying that or had the board provided a means plus function analysis of the term set top box i agree we would have deference or you would have deference to them but none of that is in the record the board did not cite any of that the board didn't cite any evidence at all the board cited of the board noted during the oral argument that regardless of what roe v raised in its brief it had an obligation to do this and that it didn't satisfy that obligation and i think all while you may not obligation regardless of what patent owner ever does it order to point to evidence in the record and articulate a specific rationale for every single claim limitation and here the board did not do that and magnum oil