morning may please the court the board's final written decision here rests on a prior combination that was created for the petitions that petitions here do not suffer the common problem  party's review where the petitioner does not describe its grounds for unpin ability with enough specificity as required by section three twelve of the i p r statute in stead the problem here is that the petitions grounds rest on a prior art conversely a higher r combination that does not work and in the face of that problem the board did two things wrong when securest pointed out the functionality that was missing from the prior combination the board first erroneous lee shifted the burden on to the patent owner expecting the patent owner to prove why that missing functionality would not have been inherent and based on that shifting of the burden the second thing the board got wrong was that they then let the petitioner off the hook and did not require the petitioner to make its case of obviousness which would need to have an operable working prior combination these  by the board are very similar to those that the court found reversible errors in the recent magnum on oil case where the court focused on two errors by the board the first shifting the burden of proof in an obviousness case  patent owner which is impermissible under the i p r statute and second letting the petitioner get away without proving its full case not meeting its burden which is under st sixteen to show a proposition on pa there should be some shifting of a burden to onto the parent maybe it's just this providing the opportunity to give a response i am i sure that there's a a new shifting of a burden that has burden shifting that happened no i don't think it's i don't think it's to me that this is a war that uses right i don't think it's i don't think the word shown is the problem i think the problem in the in the statements that you statements from the board in that one it is inherent that they are the born is either i mean perhaps they're suggesting the missing functionality would have been inherent which is not something the board can do on its own but there they're saying that the pad owner would have to show that it's not inherent and that's wrong that if we discussed in our briefs that the board where the board shifted the burden what they said they are the part that i would focus on is they said that the pad owner has not shown that the combination would have been beyond the level of skill in the art or would have produced a print result that was not predictable those are part those things the beyond the level of skill and the unpredictable result those things go to the cram analysis and magnum oil actually the magnum oil court used as an example from the board there that is almost identical to that passage in the spore decision when a board in in the magnum oil said that the patent owner had not shown that it would have been beyond a level of skill or that it would have yielded unpredictable result that's exactly what the board did here and those are the piece is that the board was not just saying it's not about just the words in the mag and while the court says the language is not what's of concern but the concern is where the board is placing the ultimate burden arguments to show that the combination that the petitioner had made combining pieces of figure three with pieces of figure five had to have functionality that it did not have and the pet owner put that on if i could turn each of the figures i think that might be most helpful the petitioner created figure a for the petition the experts declaration and the petition included a figure at which combines pieces of figures three and element that i focus on that's focused on the briefest server forty eight which is kind of in the center of figure a server forty eight comes from figure three which is in the reference and in figure three star her forty eight is connected to a central office a phone company on one server is the preference as it's a server does anything there's one sentence in the reference and it says that the server connects calls from multiple presence to the central office to the phone company so that's all that there is in the patent about that server so then from multiple prison that we agree is in figure three and it's on the right hand side of figure essay but the problem is that the pattern are pointed out on the left hand side of figure by combining these two figures the figure on the left hand side of the server has to divide data in one path to some components and voice over ip packets on a different path that's the left hand side of the server that's something that wasn't with that server in figure three  server would accomplish that routing that's the way there is no evidence you know i think that for example dr forces statement that appendix forty three sixty one that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the time the invention would understand from the teaching of split our house over forty eight could be implemented data packets in a multi state prison environment that seems to me to be to address the point you make so that is that is all about the the routing between the server and the prisons which in figure eight is on the right router is capable of the server with routing capacity is capable of handling v o i p voice and data and the only question is could it go both ways or just one way well because in the reference that server and the router it doesn't matter whether they are depicted as two boxes or want right so what it comes back to though is a problem in the evidence that here is the petitioners burden the burden of persuasion and the burden of production stay with the petitioner and when the petitioner was given a chance to make the arguments or points that you're making are guessing the board could have made an petitioner didn't they point to the same arguments about the server being able to route calls to and from server to the multiple presence but they burdens and the law and then it turns to the claims and it recognizes that the networking device and that's the claim element that's in dispute on this burden shifting issue it only does two things it collects outgoing voice over ip packets and it distributes incoming voice over ip packets and then it steps through the various teaching this but our own finds that the proposed combination that petitioner presented to the board taught both of those functions after doing so at then turned to security is evidence and curious didn't address the teachings of the art eight and they didn't address each other elements they've instead brought out a series of challenges that really didn't get to the two functions that the networking device must do and then it turned to those rebuttal arguments and weigh the allowing if you look at the record below they did not argue an opportunity it's not dispositive but they don't use that language in any of their evidence or in their arguments to the board i think it's telling that both global telling can the board when they responded to those arguments didn't understand them to be one of instead what the appellant below was to say if we take this particular combination of the dark teachings then it would have acquired some special functionality for sure forty eight and petitioner hasn't shown why that special functionality would have been present what they especial functionality is intelligent routing and i think it's important to not lose sight of the fact this is this intelligent routing functionality does not appear in the claims it's not in the claims there are only two elements that this networking device two functions that this networking device must perform that is to receive in distribute incoming and outgoing voice over ip packets the intelligent routing function is a completely different function it's not a climes and appellants overlook the fact that we did additional functionality that there's going to be separate non voice over ip data packets and server forty eight must know what how to handle those with respect to the pin checking and the billing records and so on but if you look at the claims  intel she rounding that's different from simply performing the two way routing of course that's what's what's the intelligent complement that we're arguing about here i'm  right i think that's what the word when i when i was everything and that's what the word of stands being argued doesn't have both ways of functionality we see it in more detail explication of that argument and in the briefing here if you look at the record below there just one paragraph yes there's a paragraph there where the or the pattern are argued that intelligent running would be needed in the combination speaking specifically about the combination that's presented by the by the petition ninety eight in ten ninety nine it's paragraph two twenty three of the olivier declaration and he explains the problem with if server forty eight were placed where dr forrest placed it in in that figure essay that it would need to perform intelligent routing but i get that page again i said yes of course four six nine eight six nine eight gets into nine nine and he goes on to say that the device m collect outgoing voice over ip data packets and distribute incoming voice over ip data packets to the connected system components within the centralized call processing platform that piece where he is talking about the components within the centralized call processing platform that's the left hand side of figure and that is the intelligent routing that is missing and in response the patent owner came back with the same  goes on forty six ninety nine to explain that dr forrest provides no explanation for how the server does this and there is minimal description of server forty eight in the patent just one sentence that says a router