evidence and we intend to do that in our brief we will outline in our arguments today basically what's at issue there's three issues whether or not storing a reference is called c the presentations concerning the subject matter parkins out also render them publicly accessible and the rd issue time permitting is whether or not the grounds for rejecting claim three into the printed publications you could i ask you just a real quick question about the rd issue and that is the question of whether the board departed from the theory presented in the petition the board construed as i read the the limitation one j with the added element in claim three you take issue with that claim construction or do you think it is correct what them and kate takes issue with construction provided by samsung should control because it's the time i bask in a predicate question of trying to get to see whether we're starting at the same point on on the  i think the form of the claim is as a single body meant which requires that claim to be construed to cover that embodiment and that's what samsung did when drafted the petition it basically said that with effect a claim three we need to add the park in south references to render that claim imitation obvious if we go back to back to back to whether or not the harkins out are considered pretty publications they were stored on  e c website and basically what the japes t v see is it's a joint collaborative team on videoing and it was established in two thousand and ten by the combined v establish the new generation video coding standard and is a good name high efficiency video coding h e v c as the project name and and january of two thousand  there was a call for proposal and the st quarterly meeting took place in april two thousand and ten puzzles were considered the function of these quarterly meetings was to develop a cheesy c standard and a document that embody the current j c t v c and then mirrored to the mpeg were stored there for the purpose of being presented at a quarterly meeting but because the quarterly meetings went through hundreds of documents and we spent approximately a week the meeting minutes expressly stated that what would actually be presented was not the put the document itself but a slide now with respect to the presentations that were made i guess i have two questions st is is there any evidence as to whether the written documents were available at the time that the evidence in the record of the actual documentation that was presented for either arc or is out all we have is a subsequently issued media report that talks about the subject matter of what was discussed in the course of the presentations was there any is there any evidence as to whether there was an allusion to the underlying documents as in you know if you want more information about this presentation that i've just made here's the document to look for there is zero evidence in the record of what documentation was actually looked at during those presentations well that was there is there anything to indicate that that there was any suggestion that there is that way to obtain the more complete document than i would say that i would say that because the documents were actually stored on the j c t v c website it would have been possible for the member of that eating  what's important here is that the input document as opposed to the working draft were not considered important by those interested artisans if we look at the record all of the evidence directed to the prominence of the j c t v c the distribution of documents related to the j c t v c they all relate to the working draft because the working draft was the latest standard and that's what one of ordinary skill where the interested are and since we're interested in that is shown and mr brock says st declaration and it's there's a separate section show in mr bross is supplemental declaration there is no evidence in this case of an input document such as park orders out being distributed to the public at large not a paragraph twenty one dollars so when there's a meeting and there's actually summaries of references given and discussion of those references and then the full references are fully available on the website why in the world is if they had access to it was that sufficient and what this court found was that this website is basically an ongoing collaboration to draft a top rated standard this is just more are you trying suggest that the stand some aleck trick case creates a rule of law with regard to what must exist for public access ability and the reason i asked that question is because we were reviewing the board and the board made a decision which is a fact question which we review substantial evidence on public excess ability so isn't it possible that two different decisions even under identical facts which these are not identical but even under identical facts would we have to affirm based on the substantial evidence standard of review that question potentially i'm not asking for this court to consider that as a rule of law what i am saying is that on the facts of this case with respect to the input documents there is no evidence that these were distributed publicly because what everyone was interested in was the working draft and when you then overlay that lack of evidence combined with the fact that the presentations were limited to the chase the t t c members and then also combined that with the fact that there is no evidence in the record that one could search that web site to obtain those input documents it was time searchable right it was certainly title searchable but there was no evidence there was no evidence in the record to say that one could identify for a working draft they put no evidence in that one could would be motivated to work and search for an input document the fact that samsung did not put that evidence in for any court documents is proof that samsung did not believe that those documents could identified by using the title search if samsung had thought so they would have put it in and they were required to and it was their burden of proof so the finding that these documents could be identified by exercising reasonable diligence there's nothing in the record to support that in fact the evidence is contrary to that otherwise samsung would have put it in  on alternative two of one j the board said well but it's also predicated on alternative one of one j and you agree with that we you know on that we do least an implicit claim construction one could draw from the board's construction that claim three can be satisfied either by alternative one or alternative to one could be led by the way you argued the case to suggest that perhaps claim three was limited to alternative two since you didn't present the argument which was the one that the board found to be more straightforward that alternative one was available   rendering the claims unpatentable than the theory that you presented in your petition and do you have another explanation because that explosion alone doesn't seem to answer the shall we think here there is no do you take that as some kind of concession that the claim is unpatentable or is it still your burden of proof to convince the patent board that the claims aren't the meeting notes themselves demonstrate and mr bross and mr that tro confirm how the site is structured how important the c t v c was to the community in general and how the meetings were run i gotta be honest available before the meeting and during the meeting they're still up there available they were available after the meeting a blowhard say they were perpetually available on of they remain available and that was long and that was one of the goals of the case because you see web sites because to during the presentations is there any evidence that for example that somebody said well here's my five minutes spiel and here my two slides if you want more information here's the paper and here's where to find anything like that or do we recommended for further study as to park and how is the inference there that the fact that there were attendees that were making certain kinds of recommendations about these references that attendees somehow had already some fairly deep understanding of those references in order to be prepared to  conclusion that meeting and indeed have to review those documents in sufficient detail and just to emphasize that there was no there was also no expectation of confidentiality there was no restriction on forward dissemination by the  the evidence we simply don't know what was the document documentation presented at those presentations the record also shows that park was not even submitted prior to those presentations in terms of the policy of making things available or documents available on the web site that may have been the case but that's sufficient they must be able to be accessed with by exercising reasonable diligence and there's nothing in the record to show that one could do that the evidence was to the contrary so terms of the policy to make public and these supposed discussions about these documents the actual inquiry that opposing counsel refers to as shown by the record and in mr process supplemental declaration were directed exclusively to what the status of working draft was so that when you contrast the working draft with input documents what you find is that while the input documents were on the site they were not serviceable and they can be identifiable and then with respect to the presentation you simply don't know what was presented and it was certainly a fleet presentation given the hundreds of input documents that were presented for each during that week and that is quite different from the case law which deals with a single presentation over days or hours or something supposed whereas here you have hundreds of input documents being gone through and there's simply not evidence to support that these input documents were publicly accessible thank you counsel we have your argument you can under