thank you for your honors and may please the court so as to forward itself here recognize the issue about whether there was a sufficient showing for a motivation to combine the references here turned on whether there was quote your of the combination of two of the four references on appeal that's the focus absolutely and that's the focus because there is no evidence here supporting him with the board found in saying that there was an improved performance by addressing the pretty configuration process in bird that's what the board was discussing when it was talking about motivation combined on a twenty eight may twenty nine of the record there is no there is no decision and says changing the key c p slash ip software is a problem is that not enough reason to motivate a person to a skill combined with all i know your honor for two main reasons there is no evidence showing that again this modification of the software was viewed as a virgin or a problem in the field the experts here actually agree that they are the relevant standard for and it refers to changing that software as being a problem and it's against their goal to change the stack so in that context why was  show a motivation to combine even to prioritize his general expression of wanting to do that there has to be something more point to the longer point this is not a modification in the first place there's no dispute here but what's actually happening with respect to all that it's not a modification that changes the function or the operation on the software and how it works it's just merely updating the data the numbers that are sent in lose by the routing table and the communications software in other words the numbers just like your phone uses and needs updated numbers or telephone numbers to die or to make the correct connection that's not a here that this is just providing updated information updated data to the routing table but i call that a modification of the software that's the wrong conclusion for the reasons i just mentioned it doesn't do anything to change the negotiation process and i think this is at a seventy five with a record and it talks about having the port numbers or the destination addresses modified and changed by the communications software and that's described as being part of the process without changing the software so talking to yourself those traits the same point here merely changing or providing updated data is not a modification it's just providing the  software needs so that's the reason why the board's decision is an error in finding that this was a modification let alone a modification that impose a further there's no there's no evidence time a modification here has been viewed as a burden in the doesn't in his declaration specify the overall burdens or improve performance when answering your question well i think we may have a respect for your hundred you can be a disagreement on the on the view of that but the questions burden that is greater than or less than or equal to the burdens and the old in reference itself and the expert here with the burden the burden of proof doesn't either is that the ration or it deposition provide evidence showing that oh there is something the expert did not provide evidence showing that when you had an obligation or at least cisco had an obligation to put forward evidence proving that point it wasn't harbourne is that and so always have been and with respect to the urgent issue and the proposed combination are takahashi does not have that particular burden but that doesn't answer the question here the question is what a person still be argued this as something that would improve performance such that they would look past the old and or want to combine all the talk of hostages and there's no evidence of that there's no evidence making that comparison and that's the reason why it seems cisco when they're in their opposition brief doesn't offend the board's burden analysis or board that it references all the figures three and the ten steps that are used by you all can process and you'll see in our briefs we note that that was raised not in the original petition but was released and for the first time in the reply which is contrary to the rules and content of this court's precedent and so we didn't have an opportunity to respond to that but it's still that still doesn't change the outcome here about the absence of substantial evidence because there's no evidence again showing whether it's ten steps or four steps with respect to how these systems operate is so there's no evidence no expert testimony or anything of the kind shows that steps are acquainted with bert to be ten simple opinion said that there's a modification in that information or the dado being used by the relevant cable is of a modification and that just gets back to my earlier point that merely provid anything about the analysis in the record supported here which is that merely providing an updated routing table is not a modification of the software doesn't change the function or operation in software which you undisputed record evidence here shows is something that is virtually done done virtually in every type of computer network in a system is done by virtually every computer so that would not per the relevant standard agreed by the experts upset law in this context i believe that it means adding additional entries that are going to control how the software operates so that certain packets will be diverted and handled differently than they would have been before  thirty in the board's decision they descried all the nz initialisation process in the steps that it goes through to get an ikea address for the secure communications link itself and then if you look at pages thirty one and three to the paragraph spanning those that requires going through those processing steps for every new secure connection but takahashi only requires getting an ip address once when the when the computer starts up and so that's that's one of the differences between the operation of the problem for that certainly so i would point you to the declaration cisco's expert in his opening declaration your paragraph one thirty five up to identify the secure communication destination before any application attempts to communicate with it so it requires initialization and setting up and maintaining that secure communication link but before it's ever actually requested by any software and so that's that's the reconfiguration burden that that we discussed in the in the petition and it's it's  or didn't get to that that initialization process that often goes through then restricts who's communications will be secure who's communications will be encrypted only communications with those decisions that were previously configure there's talk to ha she performs these steps of determining whether a secure communication is possible when the application software requests the initialization of a communication connection so when the connection is arguing that the board violated its own rules or allowed cisco to violate its rules regarding the scope of a petition or find that's simply not the case and that sort of decision should be reviewed for abuse of discretion and that's that's covered in the intelligent biosystems case s s l sites on this matter and if you look at appendix page thirty eight twenty eight slightly more than four pages exhaustively addressing motivational combine and extensively citing to the testimony of both experts and the references themselves i believe that that treatment deserves this court's affirm you your honor as to the point about the modification of software and what the modification here is a couple points first the board itself only made the finding only count of the modification here involves updating the data to the ready for use by the reading table so the other side of modifications here are not facts in this case and there is no argument then that by cisco that they should have been found by the board board air and somehow not making those additional finding second with respect to that issue their own expert identifies in his deposition that the only modification for him and here involved the routing table so again there is no evidence to support these other modifications and