good morning everybody we have three cases for argument this morning this panel is going to hear the first two and then we're going to take a brief recess and then the third case will be heard by a slightly different panel i'm mr a concept that when you're  make or his inventor of his invention well basically the purpose was to provide easy access to detail digital images of collectible objects which provide  detailed appearance characteristics of the collectible object and it's a little bit of a tortured read but every word is actually very important it allows for easily accessing and same time through the same in thing process the same machinery and you and you look at them under magnification so you can see the detail they would there would be minor detail differences  he's unique that's why he called them unique detail appearance characteristics they act like a fingerprint as it were so so that for that it can it so that it could be recovered and then at a future date if someone wanted to authenticate whether that particular coin is the coin that they have in their hand all they have to do is pull up a detail image i compare it with the coin in their hand and they would be able to see if there was if these unique characteristics appearance characteristics showed a difference or  was a system for that the gating signatures a system capturing the image of an individual signing an article the resulting product including the captured image that we had a situation improper hindsight says here yes you and me i think you don't dispute that all of the elements are taught in these three pieces but it was improper getting to that i just want to lay out the idea because i don't when you read when you read these these disclosures when you read something about unique appearance characteristics it doesn't necessarily strike in your head that you're looking at a blown up image of a of a coin and you're seeing the little you know the little things that are on it that are different from another coin of similar as by face one thought that kind of frame the whole picture of what we're looking at housekeeping question yes i'm curious about what the issue is that some are reducing with respect to i'm not sure if you're raising original claims ones or not or if you're asking us to address  history with with those claims are it was originally claims one through nine from i'm familiar with the history we're familiar with that right and then we got to we got to the first up train and trademark to reopen prosecution quote unquote by filing an amended and it did not specify you could only reopen prosecution of claims ten three twenty it literally said reviews firms and examiners rejection on some claims but not others or reopens prosecution it would only be the claims that the board reopened prosecution on it and if that were the case and considered i just can't tell from your brief what did you use your argument to ask you could you just tell me the issue that you're raising well i mean i think in the appeal basically we incorporated claim to want to claim on ree rejection is that you're going to you're going to look at the primary reference to say below and you're going to modify it an obvious way to see if it fits with the with the to be more like mr may course eventually the first thing you do is get rid of any kind of any kind of care about someone signing something or an autograph you throw out there is no video of someone signing something because mr baker does not care if it is that he video someone signing something if you're looking at the signed article that might be different after it's been side now we can image it you know with a high requires as an element that someone sign and video or or image period so if you take away that from the fabian no you don't have anything  problem being solved and how it's all we also the fabian lacks an important aspect is the tamper resistant visual workings and we defined in the specification what that means we don't leave it out there finding that object which proves that he's played an object but it doesn't prove that the one you're holding is the one that was funny and he isn't it doesn't even go that far because we're not dealing with totally detail for the perfect example of the baseball you might have you might have an absolutely flying about some days falls and you have a of video of him signing a baseball that doesn't mean the one that you have in your hand even if it has a serial number on it is really the one he was finding when they took the video but with that with our with our invention once you will then be paid an object even that baseball now we have microscopic images that we can you know he was too late to appeal the original one through nine decision that he should have filed an appeal here on one through not just that but a first saying that in preparing for argument i read the board decision and i think i may have overread the footnote so let me let me can i just make sure i have this straight and the first four decision they affirm examiner one through nine and then they allowed  couldn't so that's what the computer got this is the worst thing that they could have i mean they would probably just reach the same decision but could they have at least somehow preserved the original one through knowing claims the arguments to them for purposes of appeal to us yes i think so the board was correct in saying that they need they could have filed a request for a hearing or or petition the say they didn't have to that was that was might over everything they were going to have to do right i mean it would seem kind of odd the idea if it's a final decision and that they can it's not subject to appeal at some point maybe not immediately because it but how were they to know that because the board's decision is kind of computing the m p addresses this in twelve point one four point zero one i believe is disposition of the new grounds claims bubbles back up to the board and then when the board issues the second decision and if if things if the claims are rejected and the board affirms a rejection then the two sets so myself and the client sat down and and we looked at it and said well we're going to be in front of the court anyway and you know i mean it's not the court i'm sorry but the uphill board anyway so why not let them was properly and well that's that's where that the rejection of claim to her tribe i'm talking about claims i understand you have an argument on climbs i guess i was just trying to understand just think about it from the board's perspective right they had already considered he made a final decision on claims one through nine oh i understand that's what they thought but if it and by all means maybe that's the way it has to be but we didn't understand it from from the from the decision itself when we read it we looked and we saw that they were inviting us to reopen prosecution and in so many words  they were doing it and then put any limitation on which claims it applied to at all so it looked like a open invitation to reopen prosecution as so we took advantage of that and and the only the only thing i have question i hear what you're saying but what about how it says reopen prosecutions it meant an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejecting referring back to the claim through there was a ground of rejection oh well