environment and that warrants reversal in second with respect to mehlman or the board relied on a lack of evidence rather than substantial evidence and that to warrants reversal with respect to sonata this presents a somewhat unique situation in which the petitioner below priceline i b m and both experts all agreed on a definition of federated computing environment all of them agreed that it must require two enterprises citing a specific passage from the specification yet despite that evidence where everyone agreed the board in its final written decision construed federated computing environment to be much more broad in think combis any two computers even if they're within the same enterprise you know you're not suggesting that the board is bound on the legal question of claim construction to the positions being argued in parties and we certainly aren't  that's correct your of the board is not bound by what the parties proposed however an argument is first of all the construction is wrong and second of all it's a violation of i b m s due process rights to not even have noticed beforehand that clean construction could possibly be an issue i'm not sure what it is that what the relevance of your crossness argument is we have a claim construction dispute that we can perfectly well the south we decide you're right the board is right i don't understand what additional role the procedural issue plays it's certainly not that you didn't get a chance to not have predicted that the construction would be significantly broader it's similar to the case of say yes where the because the argument was not it issue i b m did not think about what types of arguments would have to be made in the alternative where a construction could not have been expected so i b m put a lot of arguments in the basket of under this construction that everyone agrees on there is no intice a patient but now that the construction was changed at the last minute without warning then those arguments no longer have have have merit if the board is correct which we would disagree the board is correct what possible arguments would you have so not a dozen that disappear if the board correct then we would say that the case should be remanded so that i b m could have an opportunity to address i know i know that's your position i'm asking what possible argument could you make if your and if entities of the correct conception and reduction to practice and in fact below under the construction where something is it worth a federally computing environment is broader it would be easier to show conception were duction to practice in fact priceline below argued that conception was not actually a true conception of reduction of practice because the term of federated computing environment must require more than one enterprise so because of that argument the case could have turned out differently and furthermore i would argue that you know that is precisely the problem is that i didn't have to develop those arguments and come up with a different position read because it uses terms like enterprise organization institutions and duties providers parties and domains that the author of this patent seems to swim back and forth between a lot of terms that are rather abstract and so therefore it is hard to tell what's the right then it makes you wonder if it is the term entities which apparently encompasses a variety of things like enterprises organizations and institutions is necessarily a broader term that enterprise and and then the next question is assuming it is how far does that go and could it be so broad that in fact encompasses subsystems within a single organization or  enterprise your honor there's a couple of responses to that passage the first is what it says such as enterprises organizations and institutions it's telling you the type of entities that qualify in a federated computing environment  it's not saying that all entities necessarily qualify the second is that in that same sentence the part that the board does not cite it says that a federally computing environment differs from a typical single sign on environment in that the two enterprises need not have a direct korea stablish relationship so it's telling you in the rest of that sentence that it's talking about interactions between enterprises those are all examples of synonyms of enterprises organizations institutions exciter are the not to computers within the same organization within the same enterprise that would be much too broad just maybe on a network level computer science level is there is there any meaningful distinction between engineering it's a sign on process between two computers that happen to be in a single enterprise versus two computers that are part of two separate enterprises yes your honor those are discussed in column one of the patent which talks about how within an enterprise it's easy to do single sign on because everything works on the same network and it's all organized by the same people over when you go beyond a single enterprise user still expect an easy single sign on process but it's much more difficult because you reach problems of compatibility and of trust and that's what the patents about we're running out of time you get to number yes your honor specifically with respect to now where the problem is that the board relied on a lack of evidence rather than substantial evidence the board found that even though everyone agrees that the user must participate in the process no only way it's going to know your honor that is not our position our position however is when i b m comes up with affirmative evidence and says here is evidence that access cards actually do have credentials insights passages from elmer same part of the same flow so what that means is in order to believe the other side you'd have to imagine the access cards are suddenly something completely different halfway through the flow of what is going on and furthermore what pr line says is not that we is not that they don't have credentials in that follow but rather melhor is silent as to what information is included in the access card or what if any authentic card here has no credentials explicitly but what i am here to say is that if i b m comes form of expert testimony with the evidence that access cards have credentials elsewhere in the flow with the fact they're called access cards and figure thirty four shows an actual sign on box that we need something other than a response from priceline that simply says it is silent about this we don't know what authentications are happening the think that one way to view it is that to compare integrate kray which the director cites and in re magnum oil tools which we cite and look at the to situate situations and in re cray there was affirmative evidence of cited in iran magnum oil tools there's a situation where we came forward with affirmative evidence and the only reason i can ask you do you think that in ip our contacts a fairly well established proposition most recently relied on by this chord in south wire and then in great gas that for an inherent c inquiry experiment is necessary to figure out where whether some piece of prior art has and now claimed property and where it's an old law that says if there's a sufficient crime aphasia case that it may it looks like it might have that property in the actual burden shift to the other side to said to show that it doesn't because the p t o can't do experiments and the party can your honor i do not believe this is a situation which we need to look to experiments i think this is more analogous dynamic drink where where it talks about if we come forward with the burden of production saying here's a reason why access cards have credentials here's expert testimony here's an analysis the response the board alternately relied on the silence idea specific leave the conclusion of the voice analysis was quote the absence of sufficient evidence showing the provision or validation of a set of credentials at the partner site and that's appendix sixty seven account with the partner site there and then the passage goes on talks about having an access car in the service using access car with the digital me card and it doesn't say anything more about the content of the access card  and would it be enough for the board and the petitioner to say there's nothing in here about the access card containing this authentication information and so therefore that should be  enough to establish them meeting of this negative limitation yes sure i think it would might be a different situation if it was simply silence in that step but if there was affirmative evidence like in other scenarios like the expert testimony indeed the fact it's called an access card in the used to log into the system i e another sign and not single sign and i think that's where you have issues so if the reference is completely silent i'm not here to say specification is extremely broad and the board pointed to numerous places within the specification where the term entity was defined as a listing of things like institutions as george kennan pointed out systems organization individual subsystems within some larger organization or enterprise institution as opposed to thinking of entities that has the i think organization or institution generally refers to an organization an individual or a system that operates on behalf of organizations an individual or another system that this notion that it has to specifically lay out that it can be  two systems with and one enterprise doesn't match up with what the specification says was or is there something beside the terms which i must say i say i find not clarifying because it doesn't say an entity is in the system in the sense of a physical thing it seems to start with the the controlling unit and then says well we include the systems of their unit right in your honor i again i think that's because of the way the specification is written but there are other places that the board pointed to in addition to that which is also a p p x one one one four column ten lines sixty two to sixty four where it talks about a federation being a set of  from what i can call them that are running or operating or controlling or owning the individual physical machines i think that that might be fair reading but you also the key to this invention right is that you have these two items let's just say for lack of a better word right now that have a trusted relationship among the right that the requirement is that even if you look at this one isn't the key to this that we just don't have a problem to solve when there's a single controller i don't mean a physical controller and be a very human or artificial legal entity controller that can make everything work together tirade about the situation where you don't have that that's not necessarily that's not necessarily true that you don't have something to solve because you have a single controller if you can think about a company that has multiple products that you still need to have signed on access to if you had like google and you might have to sign in to do mail but they also have something like interest in you might have to sign into that i mean they they have ways they can create even within themselves they can either do it separately or they can create a way that you can sign into one through the other for example facebook own  any second system with one or more at least one or more systems having a processor that is what makes up the federated computing environment and you can have a situation like that like in sonata where you have an s it's all server one and you have web applications two or three that are working together as the support found to create a trusted relationship such that someone can sign into those web applications and still not have to use their credentials if they have access to s s o server one that is arguably because not it doesn't say that it's within explicitly state that it is to enterprises that is a situation where those web applications in that as a source or one wouldn't necessarily have a trusted relationship but for the fact that there is this creation of this federated computing environment i think that looking at the specification that's a fair way to read it because it's all over the place there's times when one minute they're using entities times are using enterprises and all the board you're not limited enterprises enterprises is a type of entity it's a broader way of looking at it and that can encompass multiple readings of federated computing environments is there a dispute about the premise that both parties agreed that multiple enterprises were required there is a dispute in the sense that both parties agreed that multiple enterprises are required however i would take issue with character entities so i think a little bit of issue with this notion that they have the exact same construction iow admit that they both said it's limited to enterprises but what you have a situation here we have the patent owner saying ok this is enterprises and you have the petitioner saying but it's not limiting and the board kind of comes in that office was limiting but it's not limited to enterprises it's limited to entities so that it's not exactly identical constructions i they say if the preamp as limiting we still believe that sonata teaches that s a so server one is the first system and web applications two or three are the second system so it's fair to say if it's limiting we come to this or so there was an argument that the petitioner made with respect to sonata being able to anticipate because it had this inherent internet they had inherently argument that was not decided on here by the board we could look at terminate your the board has the option to do what they choose to do i'm not saying they wouldn't do that as well but they could if they wanted to go back to the way and look at the papers as they've been briefed and make a decision on whether or not the construction that has been proposed by this court would fit based on that petition and if that occurred there would be no estoppel for has that right because there would no longer be a fi concluding that well the access card in this particular scenario doesn't say what it contains and so i am not going to consider the fact that the access card and other scenarios disclos in fact expressly talk about having potential information contained in the access cards i don't think it could office analysis your honor well the board didn't say anything about why why this access card in this scenario should be considered a receipt from the other access for it's on the other scenarios and somehow in the operation of logging on to the partner site in the context of the scenario there would be no need to have the credential information in this access card as the norm or reference talks about using and having credential information in the access cards for the other scenario and the board never did a compare and contrast and explain why this particular access card would be so unique to the other access cards so i think because it's a little bit of a mistake to conflate the different scenarios as one i know that's what i am is asking but very explicit on describing different ways in which it works depending on whether now there is a digital media where connection with the partner site or not in this no account on the same night i'm sorry no account on the site scenario doesn't really make a whole lot of sense because milner could have put that in in that particular scenario if that's what it wanted and in fact it isn't as if the board ignored i b m s experts it looked at that evidence it heard i b m out  partially why they're complaining that we shifted the burden but all it was doing is saying look petition approved by preponderance of the evidence that moamar silent as to this issue and nothing you're experts didn't convince us otherwise and you pointing to other scenarios within didn't convince us otherwise and therefore we make a finally that there is anticipation here it wasn't burden shifting there wasn't ignoring there wasn't a cutting off as you suggest they just weren't the petitioner and the board was satisfied with that because they too didn't see anything with  reason to suggest that mel mar being silent as to that second authorization should mean something else that we should infer that oh well maybe there is because it doesn't say silence should be enough to ans for purposes of this case do you agree that if the access card in the no account on partner site scenario can it if that access card does contain credential information then that would be sufficient to be a second authentication and therefore then defeat disclosing that particular limitation negative limitation i just want to read the claim for one second just to answer you because i want to make sure that i in that and that b and that the second system was relying on those credentials to allow user access then that would be a second authorization time i'd like to first address the question that you asked church tronto about whether the burden shifting makes sense here where in an i and we're in a situation where the p t o is faced with an experiment or a negative limitation there there's a burden shifting and i just wanted to provide you a more clear answer that the reason why that doesn't make sense here in the i p r context is we're in an adversarial situation which pricing can come forward with affirmative evidence expert pursuing the case in light of public interest and that sort of thing your honor also the other thing that i'd like to bring up is that you know there was some discussion about the specification of  yes your honor and specifically what it is is the fact that there is undisputed testimony that the user must set up an access card by associating the me card and that is a bot for condition for the next step in a flow particular passage doesn't have anything about what the access card contains however because of the other information about the other flows that tells us what the access card contains and in fact priceline is only responses that now or doesn't tell us one way or another whether access keane's cards contain credentials but because if you think about it you end up being logged into the system and it's called an access card and with expert testimony saying that's the only way someone of skill in the art would interpret the reference and the fact that the referent should be interpreted in light of what someone of skill in the art would interpret it as and there's no response from priceline on the other side all of that tells us for sure that x is cards