be arguing issues relating to anticipation mr bats will handle obviously there's really only one issue with respect to anticipation by bates and that's because all the o fair enough your honor so what we'd like to do is focus the attention back where it initiated and where it truly belongs and that is not figure seven of eights figure eight and if you look at the joint appendix b five seven nine we believe that the clearest and suspect tory disclosure in bates as to transmission for example consider a user reading messages posted on a bulletin board inputting data into a web page or performing some other task during a browsing session prior to completing the task the user may be required to terminate a browsing session in such an event the necessary browser information may be collected and transmitted to a remote computer containing another browser program the browser information is then used to conflict reconfigure the browser program of the remote computer and restore the user to where he or she left off during the terminated browsing session thus in the case of a user reading a message board the browser displays the message which was and then read when the browsing session was terminated in the case of inputting data to a web page the web page is rendered with the data that was input prior to the terminations of the session contained therein in effect the present invention preserves the current status of a browsing session to be resumed at another location to the express goal of bates is to resume be able to resume at a new location in the identical format that you had at the old location and the only way that can really be effectively accomplished is if you transmit that if first the information is already stored in your buffer if you disconnect and then transmit you i def initially will have the last the vailable page or whatever it may be in the reference you will not be missing any information but that's not proper because figure seven i definition it's described as covering what happens at the first computer during the browsing session it's not directed to the transmission which is the issue of anticipation by bates that's covered in but that you've asked about the final decision following the lead of c r f d the board reversed course and it found at appendix sixteen you see there's a quote and now instead of the the full section describing figure eight that we've just discussed this is just  version and based on this truncated version the board now decided her determines that we are not persuaded that this portion of bates implies a sequential order for the last two sentences i e that the browsing session is terminated before transmission of the browser information is and again now instead of relying on figure eight at all or even discussing it beyond this short description the opinion little further down in that paragraph says to the contrary discussed above it's description of figure seven indicates the transmission of browser information occurs during a browsing session but again or point your honour's is that you don't look to figure seven to determine when transmission occurs it's only concerned about the browsing session occurring at the first computer figure eight is where the direction should be placed and figure a clearly shows that bates anticipates the  based on all the record evidence of record we are not persuaded that beats discloses either in here expressly or inherently transmitting the session history and then if you go to page twenty two in the one paragraph regarding obviousness grounds the board merely points to we are not persuaded for the reasons explained above so clearly the board looking back and saying well since you didn't show that this one claim element the one claim all in dispute regarding the timing of the transfer of the session to three whether before or after discontinuation if you didn't that it was obvious to one of ordinary skill to have it sent after discontinuation because you would want to assure that the entire session history is being transferred in the way to ensure that the entire session transferred the entire session history was being transferred would be to wait until passage that my colleague identified for him the board considered the exact passage that they relied upon in their petition and said it's not convincing the sentences don't imply  in the claim and would have a reference in to subpoena as long as there is some possibility of the required ordering regardless of what the reference actually disclose it's my friend also criticized those c f r d and the board for spending all their time talking about figure seven in bates well there's a reason for that your honor figure seven and this is appendix page five seventy three step seven twenty transmit browser information that's where the transmission happens that's why we spend time talking about it and figure eight by the way is not about transmission because i'm page five seventy five w user may be required to terminate a session before completing the task doesn't mean it necessarily happens to be that and by the way if you read it that way it conflicts with everything that meets futures so why wouldn't all of this language putting a understand that the session history is transmitted after the session is discontinued however we're not relying on the combination of beats and chanaan or bates in sound for that element we are just citing dates and this c and that was the rationale that they relied upon operation of the windows device i'm just pointing out that as the board found all of that evidence to the extent that it even should have been considered at the hearing and the board actually went the extra mile and gave the petition the benefit of the doubt and did consider all of that evidence indicated that it was only directed as to how system could operate not how it does operate and there was nothing in the record that actually if the the claims are are cancelled by virtue of one or both at the prior appeals and so that actually addresses the bulk of the first part of the obvious honor that would have argued any of those dependencies differently it was all based on limitations that were in the independent claims however but there are some later independent claims that i'm were focused on that idea now but putting aside if if in fact those other claims are invalid for any reason do the do the other cla you say they practice the invention differently but they were challenge in the other cases and so they really weren't before the board  that argued the browser session of eight was the session that's recited in the challenge claims this is at appendix sixty one and confirmed at the oral hearing on pending t twenty five in the any procedural errors in fact when confronted with arguments that had never been raised in the titian the board went the extra mile and actually considered the impact of those arguments and this is  footnote that set forth on that page with regard to the preservation argument in short there's nothing that would compel this court to upset the board's decision  ok three minutes ago thank you your honor just briefly with respect to windows anyone who's used windows knows that when you click on the shutdown option that you'll get a screen telling you that windows is closing down all open applications in the timeframe we're talking about windows and internet explorer are ninety two percent of all computers so when you show when you want to shut down your computer or you select that as a user option as a machine shuts down the the applications including the browser are first shut down then housekeeping occurs so any information that has we think that most of the client options could be executed either during the session or after the session but in respect to the shutdown it's clearly after th and what one of ordinary still would understand when looking at dates as well as the full evidence your record regarding obviousness including these admission about it was equally likely but the but the words that you needed to articulate something more discontinuation in terms of the rest of the claim to the one point i want to make on the rest of the claims obviously obviously the obviousness grounds have different claims but there's been no disagreement argument vice year of the regarding any element for any of those claims decision on playing instruction made clear that a session can be you could have five six seven sessions within a single browsing session of babies and i'm still hearing that same confusion being you know argued here today to equate