representation of devices on either side of the sport or other right for the term man to for the mapping limiters ok so it's i understood the board's reasoning they concluded concluded that the channel numbers in the c r t manual are a representation of each of those devices because each channel each channel number is assigned to a single host device as shown in figure one dash to the c r t manual i think you have that right so what's wrong with that so i think what you have to do really to understand what went wrong here's a look at the claims in their completeness to figure out where this map passed i guess going back to the c r the manual is there when you say there's some kind of mapping going on there in the sense that for each router and so therefore that post device can access data from some remote storage device in the redundancy group through the controller there is a map to the channel and there's a connection there's not a map to the device now the device there isn't a broken link between the channel and and the host computer right the host computers able to reach out and grab data that go into the pockets of the network interface cards really clicked from there's a storage device at the end of a medium another storage device at the end of a medium where not to the map yet ok and then there's the access control device is the sen map in this system from one end to the other the claim requires that the mapping be in the central brain of the device so let's zoom in on the c r b fifty five hundred brain and all th there in that one table is the channel there is no to place there the only way they can get the device in is by assuming an out from this access control device what they've read it on the c r t and looking at the rest of the system and that's the fundamental difference in all of these claims require the map to be in the brain of the five not out in the way that the system is connected and you see it in the specification the bottom that's the whole reason that we're able well because we can see outside the box we can have the multiple computers from going about the one for seven patents disclosure of the arbitrated loop physical address as i understand it that what i see in that discussion in the spect is not necessarily and address for the device itself per se i see and address for this court modding a laptop computer that has a network card inside right that has a port whether it's wireless port i guess or plug in port that is in the device that isn't at the address of the chip that does the networking in your computer just like in our past when we talk about the port for this device the fiber channel port that is the device it's a port on the device it's not something in between it's the device itself so our patent isn't describing that you're talking to something that isn't the device you are specifying the address for that device so that's the intermediate ok so you do so in the stand the mail p a is is part of some fiber channel arbitrated loop right the lp a is assigned to the card at the device that's connected to the loop they call the whole thing up or even the computer is which is where the loop is just a wire spliced together the the brains are on the interface card the seat of the patent for the cards that are in the box they have they are important to the channel and the ship is on that card for connecting to the fiber channel and then i would add that on the loop for each of the computers so there's a loop there's a card and then there's the device while the card is in the device so it's the card is part of the device is this card is not just floating around somewhere it's a card that is what you think if you open up your desktop computer we used to you know now it's all soldered right into the motherboard but you put eight and network card into your inside the computer for some reason that doesn't get you all the way the same while the car that's in a completely different place inside the router counts which is what the board did the board said well we're going to decide that this card in the computer isn't exactly the computer so any card can count of these clinics and that's not the case what what is happening with that fiber channel card that's out at the device is that's unique to that one device it's in the device it is the device it doesn't mean that they can't be switched on you can pull the computer apart to take it but it doesn't change in the way board's restrictive approach the board said if you're not working on access control this one part of the larger claim that none of that work counts per se but it even if you are correct with respect to honor there was i think our belief lays out there was work going on setting up these controllers to interact properly with the router there was where i was setting up storage devices because the storage device communicated by the controller with the router there was work on the network devices making sure they communicated via the controller with the router is a low level function these are core to the aspect of a network system without down the device doesn't work for the board it took this approach so none of that counts the error here we sent in a letter late last week on purpose surgical technologies case we think that is highly illustrated here perfect surgical this court cast a very critical eye on hyper restrictive diligence analysis criticised the board for being overly restrictive and applying a highly formalised approach and we think that's instructive here we think perfect surgical and the other cases we cite make it pretty clear that the board's diligen they had begun getting the networking working hardware software integration i think that's not materially disputed but can you speak to the finding by the board that the control access  part of the claimed invention was left to the side during the work on the verizon a project we would dispute that was left inside your honor i think the record here shows that as is common  electrical engineering there was a roadmap for this product the product was going to begin again the foundational features working and then we would work our way up the stack once things were communicating properly once the fiber channel was working the controllers were vises all that are have chosen to work on the control access feature but chose not to why because it needed to work on the verizon a project for you know finance reasons and so therefore it left the control access future to the side i mean that's a finding made rather bored so now i'm trying to figure out why is that an unreasonable finding to me so i wasn't there's a mixture there of factual finding a legal conclusion right certainly there was testimony in the record that the crossroads had decided to that access control would come in a later phase of the project development we're not disputing that we know that's a fact that no one disputes what the legal consequence of that is i think is where the board went wrong the board set up you set it aside you decided to work on it later that is or if so facto not diligent reducing your claim to practice and we said we would submit that under jolly harvested perfect surgical that's an incorrect application of the fact law under the law we would say those cases permit an inventor even if he takes of winding past a reduction in practice the inventor can  will so long as he is at all times reasonably engaged in the project that will bring the invention into actual practice here of course constructive reduction of practice kind of interrupted the flow but they were in fact on the path and i think there's testimony the record that they on the record here had been put in the timeline to come after the foundational networking was done i only have a little bit of time left so i want to make sure that i talk a little bit out to the edge of the challenge below before the board or attack on this evidence was the legal attack were done not access control imitation doesn't count they did not attack the quantum of our diligence that evidence so we would say that if the board finds a legal error here and finds that work on the non access project conceived of before or this claimed invention was conceived that's correct and we think that's common in these areas that if he begins work on a product and that as they're going on one or more members of the team come to some conception moment where they imagine a future product that resembles the product they're already working on but has nuclear abilities that weren't regionally consumed then that's the story that there's got to be a beginning then and then into the process occurred that's correct so for the invention that crossroads claimed conception the date of conception i think is not in dispute there's an invention disclosure that sets it out and the story ends with constructive action  court about how the massive three limitation requires that there be in the brain identification of the device and the independent claims really highlight that the dependent claims that are cited  map within the box and so you have the computers and you have the storage on the other side we can't take the host of vice or ear and stuff it into the box of the device itself in the box or we're talking about computers we're talking about using a representation is an address in the same way that the channel number is an address with respect to the channel the notion of device itself particularly visit mr jackson thing the channel of the separate unit from the well supported so you say that the boards construction was great to really matter i mean even if we go under either crossroads construction or the board it's for as she record that what happened here was that crossroads set aside its efforts to reduce the invention the practice it set them aside and decided instead to work on commercializing eight commercial product rather that the board found and the evidence shows were running software they were working and being tested even before actually this critical period from august to december the testimony below was that in acce was that the inventor could have built a laboratory scale version of the semiconductor ship but chose not to do so that was available to do but chose not to and what they did instead was they worked the practice you didn't do you made an election not to and so diligence fails let me pick up the also on the point that the question that judge len had asked earlier in the in the proceedings today which is that there was an utter failure here to show diligence in november and december of ninety ninety seven below crossroads argue that it's diligence could be shown by working on the patent application that was the entirety of the evidence they brought forward to the board they prepared a chronology and they purported to show in the chronology how the work that they were doing show diligence is according i think argued that there was actually some technical work that was also done argue that now they did not argue that below and there's no evidence that has been built out that there was any technical work going on none there are random pieces of notebooks that nobody's ever explained no one and below nobody said this page of this notebook shows x this does of those of books were introduced into the record correct they were introduced in the record but significantly what crossroads told the board about those was when it was trying to unique identifier which was brazen opposition frontally set forth in the professor chase's declaration all of that laid out that there was a separate ways it could be represented by eight fiber channel to get from the base to something else or did they go off in other directions here they're following a path they developed a base switch the basic device you know they weren't sold it and then they added on the extra functionality afterward that's part of the one path that distinguishes cases like crazy where he had the ability to take his path and write and make the basic transistor and even take that up and he went on a completely different path it was not a single patent and that's what the board got roger i think is the way for this court to best understand all of the cases that have been cited one point counsel said that that there was evidence that support for evidence that we have working prototypes that's not what the record up the addition of the routing is wrong or at least that the evidence does not support that it just says there were protests it doesn't say that it doesn't support this or that suggestion that they were finished and that we passed and i think judge when you picked up on we do not have a burden persuasion on this point that they were they bear the burden throughout to invalidate the patent we produce the evidence and we did point to various pieces of the evidence the key thing is the board didn't look at the quantum anyway  a firm that on the quantum they looked at the at the fact that they didn't think we were working on the relevant point so whatever that evidence is the board used the wrong legal on waiver and really on a lot of the points for even a claims here's panel really needs to understand can we just go back to diligence for do you think it's a matter of live there are overlapping elements with two inventions that working on the shared limitations is always going to be diligent you know or the other invention no and that's why focus on the path ok so if you have things that just happen to be calm down here but one of those in that way the invention goes in that way in the world when in that way you don't get all of this the benefit of all this work that went the other direction but here the work was on the cards that go into the box and the basic functionality of having a box that can move data and then we added this cool extra feature of well let's control at the central brain how that data is moved so have feeds the central brain again and while we're focusing on the central brain this is a fundamental problem  somewhere but never you can go up and down through the briefing go up and down through the records you know up and down through the hospital declaration which we never heard about today and that's the only evidence that cisco has never do they say that those i d s are in the can you go to the waiver sure but there's a lot to it we spoke a lot about it in our brief i think so rather than point number one what they didn't talk about today hospital  in when the board introduced this place where the court supposedly found the alternative now what did the board actually do in this paragraph that we're fighting over if you look at it there's these three closets in that sense and the board basically you're going to use the map from the c r v fifty five hundred and then you're swap in these parts and they'll communicate with their loops using the fiber channel i there's nothing about the fiber channel eyepiece going into the map and that's critical for the waiver and it's critical for all the other issues here because that is to get there especially for the deep end point they have to get those fiber channel i d but that is separate from those cards and separate from the network those unique identifiers have to get into the map and never do they say that they hit the map that is what's the critical problem with their alternative theory i think it's a problem they