please the court in the prior decision in this case of this court three men did this case back to the board and specifically directed to do two things first it has to be whether calm seventeen and this court said go back analyze call and seventeen and if and provide an evidence based explanation as to how would hill shows this comparison secondly this court said in terms of motivation and reason what's fifty ation of success said to provide a clear evidence supported account of the contemplated would hill stuff in combination how it would work and why that comp that combination w support a conclusion that a skilled artisan would have had an apparent reason to make the combination and reasonably expected it we knew that would hold is not inherently disclose honor right so turning to that specific point we know now that we were correct when we said that would hill does not disclose a comparison of a content based identif on an inherent c theory in the read man decision but the board misapplied the law of inherent see both misapplied the law and the facts in reaching the inherently decision first in terms of update request it's possible you have to admit it's possible these backup files can be located by comparing the binary object identifier in the update request to a plurality binary object identifiers the backup server possible but it's not name patent and if this was something that could be inherent you would think would heal having invented this brand new thing would at least say something about it it didn't can you remind me again what is the board's view and then you extract the binary object identifier from the record and then you use that binary object identifier to look through some database of binary object identif reasonable reading of the reference and the only thing the video or that your understanding of the board's understanding of common seventeen the board only in addressing column said more or is it using the binary object identifier extracted from the binary object identification record in order to locate a file as opposed to a specific binary object well we know it can't be the latter because a binary object identifier can only identify a binary object there is no just disagree with you but i'm just trying to understand what the board's understanding there's no disclosure in woodhill of a file identify off a content based identifier for a file so we know that that isn't part of what hill the only evidence that the board cited was paragraph seventy two of the goldberg declaration that was apple's expert and what the board pointed to and what dr bull bird said was only this and i quote quote the remote backup file server maintain some sort of file system or other mapping i need database that allows the binary object identification record to serve as a look up for the requisite file data there is nothing in dr goldberg's declaration about how that system or how how that description of taking a binary object identification record and somehow using that in a y that's inherent in fact dr goldberg never provided any testimony whatsoever regarding the issue of inherent to the issue of inherently never came up in this case either in the decision to institute in the final written decision but it didn't come up in til the board's read man decision and before the rebound the court and the the board never said look we think we're going to go on an inherently theory so we want you to brief inherently that was something that the board came up with for the very first time in the decision so now you can go on down the corresponding object you know your the the apples argument and the board's decision make and that's where they say this comparison of a binary object identifier against a plurality has to occur well there's two problems with that first we know that binary objects are simply small pieces of a file one megabyte pieces and there could be many many binary objects within a given file there's no explanation of how you could take one little piece of a file and a content based identifier for that piece of a file and use that to identify the entire fi there's just no explanation anywhere and you know i can't think of a way that you could do that but even more important if you go back to figure five i would and you look at the next step after four forty two step four forty three says compile a list of binary objects in the previous version of the file so if you haven't even compiled the list of binary objects until after you've obtained the identity of the  how could it be that comparing a binary object identifier to a set of binary objects that haven't even been located or compiled could somehow let you find the file is just it's completely illogical it turns the flow chart of figure five of woodville on its head there is simply no explanation of how that would happen and therefore under the law it can't possibly be feel in fact would build really teaches away from using the binary object identifiers and one more point is that woodhill earlier actually talks about how you find a fifty seven through twelve line five months at appendix one six seven nine it talks about using the file name and the file location to find the file and then to look at the binary object offsets to find where it's binary object is and then compress it remember in would feel the reason you have this binary object off set is that the binary objects are a fixed size except for perhaps the last one for whatever's left over but are exactly one megabyte long starting at five zero so if you know where the file is by the file name the location everything conventional you can find where each binary object is in that acts like an address so if you say find binary object three new go in three megabytes and for make a byte three to make a byte for that's exactly where that binary object is and so again a calm eleven when you're talking about compressing a file it would kill expressly says here's how you find a file and it has nothing to do with comparing binary objects with anything in fact woodhill uses of course the binary objects in one to one comparisons i think this was all agreed during the last year and before his board and even even by the board to save bandwidth to determine what has changed so you're looking at binary objects individually and comparing one to one with the binary objects for the corresponding version on the user's computer and whether you're backing up and or your wrist or ing the whole idea is to make that one to one comparison and only use the band if there's been a change there's simply no disclosure whatsoever in woodhill of using a binary object identifier for this broader process that frankly wasn't invented in till the true names patent in the three ten pat predecessors of using a content based identifier for this broader purpose of determining whether a particular piece of data whether it's defined by a fixed size or not to locate that anywhere in a network or a system and that's a again another reason why it can't possibly be inherent in woodhill to use this content based identif questions regarding the motivation to someone thank you the local workstation whereas what we're talking about here in terms of the restore procedure is taking place on the backup file server it's clear for the very first time just doesn't match up with the claim language sure what the data item in column seventeen of one hill that is being compared to the reality of value it's the binary object so i think column seven binary object identifier correct the content dependent identifier content depende identifiers on the backup file server altogether so there could be like ten million binary object identifiers among i don't know a million or five hundred thousand files there could be and there object identifier for every binary object and every single file stored on the backup server correct and that's the only evidence that there is before the board there the evidence that was why would th file names our locations are on the back of a file server mr hadley personal ad for the very first time in this appeal points to in the binary object identification record that gets sent over as part of the request now personal web for the very first time points to this link to the back up instance record and from there they point to in the back of instance record there's a link to the file which has filed name forty and location thirty eight this is the very first time that that argument has been made back before the board in the original filings that person who had made it had argued sort of a different theory of how the file was located but this pointing to the back of innocence record you don't see that and patent owners response dr drew his declaration dr drew was personal websites where you didn't see it in the motion for rehearing and you didn't see it in their brief on remand so they take issue with the board sort of not going through various alternatives and shooting them down while this alternative was not before i g  or just trying to understand why would there be such a database no such database as i mentioned and with no one on the tops of a file database that talks about a lack of q due to phase and now you're talking about this very interesting other database but even if there were some doubt of it even if the database on the backup file server did segregate things by files it still would perform this comparison because every file unless it's just one meg every file  going to have more than one binary object so the one who is very clear in concept and team that the that the request that goes over the update request that goes to the back of the file server contains the binary object identification record for each of the vinery objects of the previous version of the file that needs to be restored so even if there is some segregation by user or file on the back of file server you still have to locate the binary fire and then you do what you can somehow compare that identifier against the forty binary object identifiers in the previous version of the file that is correct to see whether or not that binary object identifier exists on the back of correct but there is nothing there's no evidence whatsoever that on the backup file server this in order to do that you would need to file name location things of that sort to kind of find where you're even going to start to do this look up of the binary object identifier and they haven't pointed to anything on the back of a file server that shows that there's filename follow cation in fact the binary object identification record fifty eight that gets sent as part of this update request does not contain the file name and the are all going to have the same conventional file name so if say you have five versions of a say a word document a legal brief you have five versions and you have on the user's computer version five and you have maybe version four off of the previous version because what else says you have the current version one previous version everything else is stored on the back of a file server so you want to go and you want to restore to the current version to you know previous version two it's on the back of you can't use the conventional name because you send back the conventional name to the backup file server that's going to give you versions of wine two and three you're not going to know what version you need to go to and again there's nothing indicating that the update request includes a filename or a location that's not what sent what sent over is the binary object identification record within the binary obs object identification record there is no filename there is no file location that is linked you know you can sort of reach that through various links but even there is column three makes clear the file name and location are the file name and location on the user's workstation there's nothing indicating that any of that information is on the back of foster i think column three towards the bottom is very clear on that are you saying that you're using the binary on three identifier not only to find the prior version of the specific binary object i think of that particular file on the backup server and then you kind of work your way to getting access to the backup file i think i think it could work either way and i think under under either instance it would there would still be location filename anything of that sort of think column three of what hell is very clear that the filename forty in the follow cation thirty eight are all about what's on the the user's workstation and again for the reasons i mentioned earlier you can't just send a filename because if you're looking for say version one version to version three and so on are all going to have the same file name so using file name doesn't doesn't really get you anywhere and imho going to have the same name it's not for each file identification record thirty four in file database twenty five one or more backup instance records forty two are created that created containing information about the file so it's clear that file location thirty eight and found in forty are all about the current version of the file that's on the user's workstation you can create numerous backups are going to have a you know whatever five backup instance records if again looking at the evidence that was before the board i mean the board did consider what hell they consider the testimony of dr goldberg the theories that personal web is is putting forth now were not something that was presented to the board a three that you see so i think you're standing up here today and making it but that doesn't help you so i'm not making an explicit waiver argument what i'm saying is they're trying to fault the board for not considering it for not going through sort of a look at everything the board for not considering what's in the disclosure of would whi so i don't you may believe you're not making way of argument now but you definitely did earlier in the oral argument ok perhaps i i misspoke what i was intending to say was that when considering what personal a bargain is it the board didn't go through the proper analysis that it didn't say is magic words of this possibility doesn't work and that possibility doesn't work and that possibility doesn't work and i haven't seen any authority that requires the board to go through every single potential possibility explain why it wouldn't work what it did sent and then they came back a great woman said actually it's attach great here it's demonstrating the patents attached so that's the nature of the argument as i understood it i could be wrong so it's not that it's actually attach where is my link in the linked where you said it wasn't present and they said sure it is it's a link it's the link you sent which contains the very information the link is not so so the link does not get in a database structure a link being sent doesn't contain the information and in any event  binary object identification record contains the link to the backup instance record that does not contain the file name and the file occasion with in the back of instance record on the user's workstation there's actually a link to the file identification record which what we are arguing perhaps it wasn't entirely clear but but the file identification record is not something that the backup file server has ever has access to and there's no indication it does a it's purely a link to the backup instance record which then contains a link but in any event the file name in the file of patients that are in the file instance record on our information about the file the current version of the file on the user's workstation that is not information about the  blacklist access to something on a backup server you would think you would be as and stuffing trying to approve or disapprove access to a given file and not to it given little data i inside of the phone you could have a list i mean all we're talking about in terms of the combination is basically taking the existing system of what hell and i think there are a few places in the board's decision on remand where they basically say you know wh just about all the way there but you just need to add a sort of small authorization layer of stuff and all you would need to do is add a field say in the database th does user a have you know access to these various binary objects it would be a pretty simple thing to implement in a database structure to approve access to given object inside of a file as opposed to approval to access to the files all correct because you could have it the binary object is just you know as we've spoken about just splitting up the file in to various pieces you could have a field in the database that you know that you had brought up to an instance where you say it's a forty meg so you have forty binary objects and you could have in the database on the back of a file server a field that says ok for these you know for forty different binary objects yes user a has access or maybe you know whatever user has access to is not listed there so therefore user a does not have access and is not authorized to to access that file so it would just be a simple modification of the existing system you certainly do it on a binary object basis because you could have all the binary objects for a particular file when they're backed up you can give permissions or not permissions of those things can change over and certainly give it to you i want to go back to wood hill column seventeen it expressly says that lines twenty eight to thirty two the distributed storage manager program of the canes from the user the identities of the current and previous versions of the file not the binary objects of the file which needs to be resort we go to column to figure five i at step four forward to obtain identity of the file and then we go to figure three and there is expressly disclose something called a file identification record the problem that the where the board and apple fail to satisfy the is that nothing in their experts declaration there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever and no explanation in the board's decision about how you would find a file using simply a binary object identifier for one little piece of the file particularly when the patent says obtain from the user the final file and you have something called a file identification record that has the file name and the file location i mean there is no suggestion anywhere that you can't find the files conventionally that's the way you found files since computers are i'm hearing the other side saying you could find  a given binary object and not locate the the argument that the board made or that what the board found was that you used the binary object identification record to find and the binary object identifier is a content based identifiers the find the file by comparing the binary object identifier against a plurality there is nothing in the record whatsoever and nothing in the declaration to support the idea that that's how you find a file and everything and what hill says just the opposite that you find that you have all the information that you need to find a file conventionally and if that's the case then you can't possibly have an inherent disclosure of something that the board and apple admit would still doesn't mention and that's a comparison of a content based identifier against a reason we've been through this once and we would respectfully ask that this not be remanded again back to the board we've already been through on nearly four years of i p r proceedings on this