today so that our time this is more focused i believe the course had reversed the patent trial an appeal board in this matter because the board imposed requirements on the challenge claim that had no predicate in the challenging claims limitation from claim to which is determining whether to allow a client to join a cash community we posited to the board that in a part disclose these limitations by its activity related to a server system that has numerous server groups and the server groups are interconnected in what is called a hierarchy so the serbs of you know hora do have a caching identity and i think that's critical in the board actually found that of the things in the in the boards of construction it looked for was whether there was identity or similarity and in a hardy ca group table that specifically defines the contents of a server group nothing contents excuse me the members of a server so the members of a server group share an identity by being grouped together in a group table there is also the concept of a cached directory in a heart and that cache directory is specific to each server so the cache directory that provides a participation together as part of a caching in fifty now you see it in the disclosure of in a hard we played this out in our brief when new content cast content is received hierarchy is what is the relevant cash community and it is our position your honor that there is no limitation in the claims of the one four five patent that specifies that there needs to be a relevant cash community the claims of the one wh five patent speaks only in terms of whether there is a decision to allow a client to join a cash community not the relevant cash community and i don't want to take anything away from the board because clearly the relevant cash community is a phrase it used but we need to look at its underlying rationale and if it exists it seems like the why am i going to be really simple minded sure here it seems like you're arguing that since you and your opposing counsel are both members of the community of people who are eligible to practice before the federal circuit which are members of the federal circuit are you and opposing counsels are members of this community texas where the federal circuit bar it's like your argument is that only two of you you represent a unique community to somehow by virtue of your shared traits as members of the federal circuit bar i don't understand that if the community is all members of the federal circuit part of the fact that there's just two of you here doesn't make you a separate community and that's why i feel like you're up against the logic that the board adopted clearly simplified by me here over simplified you'll possibly you can tell me why that logic is wrong because other than the happenstance of us happening to happening to be in the same room at the same time we don't my colleague and i don't share anything that makes us a unit there is there is nothing other than our membership in the greater community at the federal circuit bar that would cause my colleague and i to be a community that's not an issue that the board have the board recognize and a group expressed that the server groups of in a far were a community and it could not hold otherwise because allowing somebody to join because the board built a negative limitation of the i don't i don't have i don't have a problem with that what the boards that is or why not i mean frankly that seems like a really bizarre claim construction that allowing  existant there and that therefore they have limited the broadest reasonable interpretation claims if we look at the one for five ad and what doing to find we're going to find a caching system that has multiple communities and i and there are multiple cast communities within the caching system so to come back and say you know harvest server group cannot be the relevant cache community is to build one of two limitations in the claim one they're saying that a server when it intends to join must be polluted all together from a holistic caching community and that is completely directly inconsistent with the one four five cat the other rationale that that you see from the board and this is on a twenty five the board stated in a hard does not disclose limiting propagation of the cache directory to within the server group that forms the multicast hierarchy in other words the board  saying there is nothing in are you haven't you petition or have not shown the board that in her expressly says there is no cooperation within the servers that's not a requirement of the one for five that if we look at the one for five if that is a claim limitation if there is a requirement that the server groups or the cache communities operate in complete isolation why would there not be some statement to that effect in the one four five pattern that there is no for both of these reasons your honour's it is my position that the board imputed limitation to the claims of the one hundred five patent and newly restricted those claims and then tested the prior little hard to determine if the specifications ever talk to the server was denied entrance into a cash movie and they concluded of the negative they looked at the expert testimony presented in this case which includes roughly twenty pages of testimony from dr thorton as to the exact issue on the subpoena what what does a combination of a hora when taken in combination smith teach to one of ordinary skill in the art this is an application that was translated from the japanese application of middle east testimony was never challenged it was never questioned it was never contradicted by the expert of reloaded his testimony said very little about the teachings of n r r and balanced against the very  doesn't work if you've got sizable imitation so in a forest primary teaching is how we construct a community and you off hierarchy and we're still able to communicate down all the communication get to manage that hierarchy and we still  omar overcomes which is once you have a large number of servers and the architectures like smith for example you have a lot of communications band with and that actually is counterproductive because it means you going to get the content slower because of all the communications to  know if you can and that's one of the arguments as presented by council oh if you look at claims twenty nine three thirty four i think it's very clear that the community in play twenty nine is a casualty you look at the preamble which the board that's the because of additional arguments or analysis or evidence the board should have found a claim twenty nine is different that's a new argument that was presented for the first time on appeal but i don't understand is your argument think communities have to be caps communit community and here's why and here's why you should find that even if they are doesn't teach allowing to pass community you should somehow teach that claim twenty nine that's all out in our teachers that it does allow a client to join a community that argument was never presented by the board when you say no to the board you say the argus never presented to the board but it seems to me as i'm looking at the board's opinion right now it clearly created a community can claim twenty different from a cash community and explain you just say community i mean claim differentiation principles would suggest that those two things have potentially different meanings so i think in this case there's a lot of differences between point claim twenty nine and the other claims so i don't think you could make a strict change and you look at the other elements explain twenty nine i don't think you can make that judgment i'll be honest with you i find the board's fact findings about what it you know hard does or doesn't doesn't disclose for guarding cash community and community list to be nonsensical and somewhat internally inconsistent i understand your argument you're making a great argument that attempts to infuse some logic into the board's decision by virtue of telling me they should they were really looking at this like the term it has the same meaning it's just that they find that anywhere they didn't say that anywhere i'm struggling with health court's decision i'm not saying that means you lose their effect findings to be made here and the fact any were made by the board and i've got to give them substantial evidence deference but i am struggling with y only on the next page to the hierarchy but they actually hold the community and the heart is there for the overall higher and i think the other thing that's important here you don't why and on the next page when they talk about the multicast life that matter and i understand because the new community right there's a lot of similarities so i have similarities some similarities with everyone in and it doesn't mean that in our heart teaches that those similarities constitute a community and in fact you know if you look at the balance we spent some time talking about boundaries on on the balance arguments there's really no boundary between  i mean that actually can take a server groups that are next to each other share members you know they overlap they overlap at a certain group leader and that's sort of a good leader also doing a supporting communications that come down the tree so problem with what you're arguing right now be that if you're just talking about a community you're going to put the council or all the members of the community of folks who can practice before the federal circuit bar but claim doesn't say claim twenty nine cash to meet this community so why isn't it not when the board finds you know they're a server group have similarity in communications why do they also have to find anything related to caching claims of the one four five to require the cast community to be the largest possible cash community you could identify those claims are not in the one four five pattern and they don't even make sense in the context my colleague talked about the principle it is true though is it not that you never argued to the board below that the community identified in claim twenty nine and its follow on was anything other than a cash community that is but your honor on claims twenty nine through thirty four and thirty six the problem with the board's analysis is that it did not have any analysis it applied the same analysis from claims one into what we called claims that want it apply that same analysis to talking about are cash communities claims twenty nine through thirty four do not even have the concept of allowing which is what predicated the entire analysis by the board on claims that one i mean is missing the entire limitation on which claims twenty nine through thirty four and thirty six are missing the entire limitation on which the board ruled with respect to the other claims and in the board took that rationale in for to go over to another set of claims that simply doesn't even have the same element that's a big big problem the rationale simply doesn't apply that's the problem with claims twenty nine three thirty four and thirty six but i'm not i want to direct the the court's attention back to claims that one because my colleague has again said this is a factual question you don't hear me debating any factual issues about the disclosure of you know heart i will agree with the core agree with my colleague that there is a server group that is a community and there is also a multicast or a hierarchy that can be viewed as community as well my contention is that the claim scope of the one four or five patent does not render any of those facts problematic from an application of the prior standpoint there can be bigger communities look at the one for five p relevant cache community because there's a bigger picture hierarchy him play that bigger picture hierarchy is irrelevant to the claims of the one four five patent there's no factual dispute is my point it's a legal dispute and i want to direct the board to column thirteen lines thirty three through thirty six of the one four five pad which i think is the best example in the one four five patent of two things you see in this column thirteen minus thirty three through thirty six and this is to provide the context it's talking about a new client attempting to join a cash community in the one four five pat it says if no communities are found or found communities do not allow the cash magill to join then cash module may attempt to start its own cash community now talk about the principle of inclusion which is how my colleague described it in our part because you can be rejected from a server group because the server group has a max limit which is undisputed you can be rejected from a server group but still join another community and be part of the hierarchy in the one hundred five patent if no communities are found or you're not allowed to join the community you start your own community and you're part of the hatching system there is no requirement in the one for five patent that is server has to be rejected from the broadest cache community as long as there is a rejection from a cash community period you've satisfied the claim limitations the one of four or five patent has a