over a power line quoting and that it would be an external network to the remote server and yes your honor he did say that how can your case go forward after that it's over power on it's over i believe if you look at twelve o seven your honor in the appendix he says i don't agree and this is at line eleven of his deposition the question was and you agree with what i just asked you and that was from mr bradley and his answer was i don't agree that the power line is an external power line my interpretation of that is different than what you're saying and he said paragraph eight osa and i say so we don't sue saw a classmate at west point who was and i defer to that  is that includes the necessary communication components to communicate by telephone to periodically transfer collected data to remote site that's one possibility but he never came but he did clarifies that he doesn't believe that the power line whatever whatever is communicated over a power line in such or in any of the prior art is xterm on page thirty one dollars of the red brake i didn't says that you've quote cited certain portions of mr blackburn sort of be intimately aware of an allegation like th bottom of the page i see of the red bridge i turn on notes that you quote never identify or explain any technical difference in queen transmitting ip formatted data over an internal power line versus an external power on a is that true that you don't and b is there any technical to say it is not true that we don't this is a matter of fact the filtering technology of the pa itself discusses that you have to have filtering technology to go from the internal which is there is only one point so if you're transmitting on an internal home network with for example your you're transmitting to one receiving device and so there's no point to point technology involved with respect to your nd question there is no way or the patent itself discloses filters that that prevent and you cannot i mean at the time of this the invention you couldn't transmit  over the wire technology or over the power line technology without having filters and firewalls and explicit encapsulation technology too because otherwise it's going to grip and has multiple i where is the well your honor i believe that our brief as it relates to the substitution argument is one place where the board found that you can testimony that nothing in so provides the necessary component of a modem for communication over an external power line that we're just poss asked could you at the time of the invention what technologies existed to convert power line signals from an internal home post metered home to an extra power line network he said the five to four patent the five to four patent is it he cites the patent to invalidate the pat that's the teaching he says the teaching is in the five  abandoned patent application for the proposition that one would know how to do it and the way you would know how to do it is to look to the five for patent self and that is it and if you want to see the page line or the then excite for that i can tell y please the court and you agree with your friend in the board that claim seventeen as a last resort yes your honor and certainly the only claim disputed and truly the only limitation disputed is the last moment taishan of claim seventeen so that's the only thing we're really needing to address here on appeal there's walk turning to your question i'm going to go to my colleague here about page twelve of the blue brief where without citation smart meter says had to meet it in fact when you look at what the board held the board held and found that smart meter this is a quote smart meter does not acknowledge this presumption much west come forward with sufficient argument or evidence to support  put that in our read brief highlighted it they opted not to foul reply there is no evidence that supporting their argument this is a straightforward case we have a single reference with a single imitation of a single claimant issue times the admissions by smart meter and its expert mr blackburn and went through and all of that provides more than enough substantial evidence to support the board's determination of patentability their sole argument was acknowledges that soup pays lip service to transmitting consumption information over next on a power line now they call it lip service what that means is yes to says those words it's in there but we're not going to take it as face value we're going to say it's not enabling but again the board found that they didn't even acknowledge that it's presumed to be enabling much less come forward evidence to provide it and that's where we are this is a straightforward case where the board's findings are well supported by substantial evidence we put all these points and more in our read brief they opted not even to follow reply responding to it including all the arguments that they wait for claim construction and i want this out to be affirm that's a different question than whether it's enabled or not but it discloses well i believe the presumption only goes to issued patents and it's not such is not an issue patent it's not enable border the border disagreed the board disagreed with their with their expert who claimed that there was no technology that allowed transmission over an external power line  area mean the other side i mean by either side by anybody but the patent owner know their expert dr appel testified that the only place you could find that was in the five to four pattern itself that was the only place where it was