questions or you may have something new and different otherwise which move on to the other issue control and really which were separate elements in claim eight of the eight for one patent and so because of that and patent ability finding should also be reversed the rd ground and the board made no factual findings which they are required to do to show a motivation to combine instead they did essentially a book report summary of petitioners attorney argument and found that that had national underpinning without actually making a finding anticipation and there's no country expert testimony and you think that that's inappropriate that that effectively turns it into an obviousness it clearly yet the problem is that com does not have d m a technology it's using a conventional radio frequency point to point communication which makes sense because it's an old reference that predates c d m a so the problem was it's just not there and there is he offered that testimony but his testimony if you read it is all conclusory there is no citation so he just says it says this and that means c d m a and we know from the t t l to decision that it conclusory unsupported  opinion of an expert cannot actually provide substantial evidence that you know the reference discloses the limitation so that's the issue and he further questions thank you ok thank you for please the court i want to touch on one minor thing on the time bar before moving on and that was counsel's comment that they were afforded no discovery and i just want to make clear that's because it wasn't requested for at no point in the i p r proceedings time bar did they say hey we want to understand a little bit more about the relationship between the parties we want to seek discovery and they just didn't raise that issue below turning to the merits of the three grounds dealing with a single claim if the court affirms on any one of these grounds that disposes of the dispute between the parties it's all on claim eight the only claim that was asserted in the litigation with respect to the st grounds  dealing with netcom your honor was exactly right that dr solomon's opinion was saying what i'm explaining the reference i'm saying what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand this disclosure in the does not challenge don there solomon's opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art understands that reference to be teaching f h cdma nor was that probe at all in dr solomon's deposition  actually it's the discussion below pine's that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the radio communication in and in the reference itself that's at nine hundred and thirty four dollars left hand column right smack in the middle i'm solomon is relying on in part in these paragraphs to say yes you'd understand this is frequency hopping they're each assigned a unique address and that's essentially dividing the channel by this frequency hopping code which is what  no testimony rebutting his opinion from that perspective that f h c d m a is in fact disclosed expressly in the net com referencing so therefore there is substantial evidence supporting the board's final written decision on those grounds and the claim to control and they claim is set up so that you have a control communicating through a relay which communicates with a meter and back and forth using c d m a at some point in the past our argument was is not and was not below as the board recognized that a single remote station constitutes both the ten troll and the realized argument was that gas in the us expressly describes data obtained by one remote station can be communicated to a central location using the other remote stations as a realist and so gas in the old us expressly teaches that the infrastructure and the system used to communicate from the meter to the control station and have multiple multiple remote stations in between the sort of ind internal remote control station that function as a relay and so our argument is not that one box so to speak is satisfying to claim elements it's that there are separate claim elements in the board recognized that that was our argument and rejected the same argument that a c i is making now at appendix two hundred and thirty five with respect to the rd grounds nelson and roche there's a similar attack on that combination on the grounds that the what's called pm are  and figures fifteen through seventeen in that nelson reference specifically show the daisy chain i just described the primary challenge to the nelson and roach obviousness grounds is one of  one from dr solomon a pining on why a person of ordinary skill in the are at the time of the invention would have taken the system in nelson and used the c d m a teaching from the road and apply that to the system  unrebutted counsel referred to the recent t q delta decision indicating that the board cannot rely on conclusory expert testimony here it's robust expert testimony that the board considered in skill in the art would have been motivated to do the proposed combination so with that unless there are additional questions always the rest of my time ok analysis and there is no support so the petitioner has the burden on this so if they don't meet their burden it is not incumbent upon us to present competing expert testimony on this point and they have not met their burden to show that netcom either expressly or inherently disclosed seeming so turning to the nd round yes united claim made requires three separate elements there is the utility meter there is the relay that communicates the metering data back to a control word is read in the purpose of the system is eliminate the need for human meter readers and make this into a fully automated system and here the issue is that they are mapping the remote station as both the relay the communicator and the and that's actually collecting all of the data and if you look at gas tonight us appendix nine hundred and sixty eight dollars at column for lines twenty one through twenty three what gassed unitas teaches is that the remote station is either a handheld device or something in a car or something at the house that's actually gathering data from the meter and so if you say that that is both the communication means and the end thing you have this odd situation which we have here which is a human meter reader partially automated system being contorted to anticipate the fully automated system we have a need for one patent and that just makes no sense and it  inconsistent with this court's decision in fact and finally we have the nelson and roche ground under new base of the board is required to make their own findings they're not just allowed to summarize the parties attorneys are arguments and nelson already had a communication system in there and there the board made no finding as to why one of