inform whether the command inserted into the update or incremental backup file causes the second computer to duplicate data or information from the old version of the file into the second computer's copy of the current version of the file as required by the writing the command to copy limitation but then there's an example where to determine that you need to look at what the second computer does i mean i know that it's really hard for you to rea retained by default which would include or command to copy and discard by disc is be retained by default that you're not interested i know you're not answering the question about a language  williams in other words they don't look at the updated file they say let's look at what the second computer does but that's not what the claim requires the claim require something in the update file itself your respective of what board's that and if they had said that they would come out the other one your honor i think the reason they came up the other way is because we're basing later in the paragraph is let's go look at the result but when you look at the result you can't reach the conclusion the board reached because the results of the two different types of update scheme retained by default discard by people are indistinguishable you can't tell from the results how you got there and this is disclose and here is he is not proper where it's a mere possibility or even probability that that would be the result inherently requires that it be the only possible result and here that's not the case and so we think when the court looks to those files that the anticipation does not necessarily flow from what is disclose in world and it's at least equally likely even under fisher's experts interpretation at least equally likely that the other scheme could have been employed the other synchronization scheme could have been employed which does not use a what happened in the second computer and decide oh there must have been a command in the update on the question of claims thirty seven and forty two which other claims that do not include the command copy but instead include the determining langridge the board concluded that the determining limitation requires there for the first computer determine whether the last version of the subject file sent to the second computer is not the same as the current version of the subject f fourteen decision but when the board partly went to apply their construction they didn't apply the construction that i've just repeated to you they  looked at will and asked whether the determining step or the determining limitation required absolute certainty in the board of page twenty six concluded that when looking at williams we do not require that the determining step were quire absolute certainty and so the conclusion was that williams anticipate the claim but this absolute certainty we quarreling is a bit of a red herring because the actual construction that the board reached is whether the last version of the subject file sent to the second computer is not the same as the current version of the subject file and i notice in that statement it's not the last version sent by the first computer the one doing the determining it's simply valid last version of the file now the board not analyzed williams under that standard and instead they asked about this sort of absolute certainty what farmington concluded that well williams doesn't  computer is not the same and when you look at williams you must conclude that that is not the case as we already blown and presented here papers williams specifically describes a situation of sending an empty file half and the reason to be empty five is sent as part of the update file is so that the receiving computer knows which version of the file to apply the update to need not be the last version and so again because this is an interest of patient argument we do not have the personas limitation being taught in the reference and so in tissue patients is not correct the same type of flaw in the board's analysis occurred with respect to baucher claims thirty seven and forty two were determination is made by the first computer without interaction with the second computer to support the claim that we're not told really much of anything else about how the board reached that conclusion but various portions of the record before the board and then at three thirty eight in the middle of page we'll edge what was not done prior to the invention was to employ in this method my statement what the board's that accurate they didn't they didn't say you didn't distinguish the prior record they said you didn't distinguish the prior or that you knew about i think that if the board did state that they did not ability over the prior are not a correct or not an action so there was a statement and that is relied upon but even setting that aside your honor there is an additional independent reason here in this case and that is the so they've limited their statements and i've even made even a conclusory statement that it covers the prior art known to them because they've limited out certain sections in importance wosm are there this file segmentation is a broad area preexisting prior art is expected to indicate what it doesn't particularly with respect to the feature it has proposed to add to the original pack claims i e defined segments etc etc instead patent or owner relied once so there's three separate independent grounds showing that the features in that claim were both anticipated and obvious so the floor directed cloudy to focus on the new feature why did that new feature williams and miller and there is substantial evidence supporting those regions including admissions by applying its own expert witness and i would refer the court to eight thirteen fifty for that admission i would also refer the court to eighty eight sixty nine column twenty two through five hundred eighty nine fourteen to fifteen for discussion of the substantial evidence for an execution  only addressed and let me actually have the case for you here for the statement that they're referring to and i gave is made under the heading of prior parts  been made to a file so we've got three prior art references and three setter fields of product they're all relevant to the app ability inquiry including this notion two amendments they just focused on the single field while back ok so so original claim and here they just stated that they're only looking at the files of the backup field while ignoring these other fields of invention that have all the references and they admit that the invention it's not the seven ninety nine patent is of file synchronization so why their expert would not be comfortable with that's what they said they're experts not comfortable to make a statement outside the field a file back up is inconsistent because in his declaration he stated he was an expert in the field  so that's a pretty that's a pretty glaring omission that they first limited it to the feel of file backup and then they only looked at the williams reference specifically in their motion to amend and didn't address privately at all and then they discussed they focus on the claim as a whole but when you're adding a new limitation the first step has to be to look at just the new play when you take from that you're at because of that new ad the mitigation is present and where you have to address whether it would be obvious to combine it with the other prior limitation and look to at least dr paul williams and also to see if that that limitation of comparing to file with this to to sickly out the optimal division points was present and they just simply failed to do so and that's very similar to what happened and the microsoft the proxy conversation where the r p reference was used to reject the claims they had notice of it an opportunity to respond to it and they simply chose not to and that's that that's exactly what happened here so i submit that any any so that is the area that he drops and you know papers and looking at eight three thirty eight we see none of the cited references that issue is proceeding teachers or suggests determining whether a second second delivers five hours about sending an updated copy of a web page to somebody else and was never relied upon in any of the rejections for teaching segment the wonders of nature li three three h or on this is our motion to me at the bottom of the page none of the cited references that issue in this proceeding changes or suggests determining whether a second computer has a latest version of a file when said to terminate was performed by the first computer without interaction with the second computer by comparing the representations of segments of the latest version of the file with representations of segments of an earlier version of a file in which hands of each of the segments of the earlier version of the file are defined by segment delimiters that are statistically determined to be optimal division points for the s