r proceeding in the pan office i think there is one central issue here and that is whether there is substantial evidence supporting the board's conclusion of obviousness then the answer is no because the remembering correctly that the heart of this is you had and a t m base system in one piece of prior arts you had at least in factory he said by nine hundred ninety six at the time of the invention time of the invention ip protocol use was one of a small number of well known communication protocols for for transit transit components of networks and so on what one would have thought about using it a virtue circuit communicating voice between p s t s and when you say virtual circuit just explain to me it is that actually sending packets out of does is inside this framework it first say hey someone's calling and that's trying to make a connection through a number of humps or networks and to do that i have to rese the resources for the hong kong so say hey you know i don't have one wire you know continuously going from one card to the car park so if you have this going through number of within a relatively finite universe of different choices was just a matter of choice motivated by a desire to provide the benefit of a simpler was looking for a way to find the network that would provide sort of optimal exchange of data whether it's digitized voice or otherwise that was the big rage back then  why does that make it make a difference and i didn't see anything in that discussion and i haven't don't remember any thinks that said lannes are distance limited but there's nothing about these claims that are i think about distance limited and i also didn't see anything that suggested when you have been in datagram delivery systems using an ip protocol and an expert says it would have been obvious for somebody in the other system to use the same thing doesn't it seems to me i guess tell me what's wrong with the conclusion that the boiler is heigl to credit that in the absence of some reason to say wouldn't work bad idea something like that right during the time period the local area network uses what's called the sharing media to communicate with means is that it wouldn't extend to of wide area network but there's nothing in the clay talks about local or wide area nothing in the claim that talks about how big the left work is people let me put it another way i think you probably would agree that playing one would read are a system implemented on all of the local area and therefore your honor i think you correct that the claim gram means all the packets are going all over the place and somehow it can be put back together that's the understanding at that time theory people understand telephones circuits which there's a there's a learned except time to put the boys back together in a continuous stream and that's the problem that has to be recognized and i don't think the everything's record shows that recognition in the end you three judges in the it didn't understand this argument i'm trying to understand what the board is was thinking i personally do make internet into a virtue circuit network and that at that time the internet communities which way where are we going so there's a lot of  review of facts directed to the combined ability of cameral and awami based on technical arguments that largely it did not present to the board below during the trial  thought i thought that the the principal contention they have here is that there is a failure of evidence to meet your burden of the evidence and the failure of evidence is the absence of any basis for the conclusory assertion that somebody thinking about transit between two voice networks would borrow the land internet protocol option and it's a failure of evidence problem so there is substantial evidence supporting the board's conclusion that by nine hundred ninety six one of the ordinary skill in the art would have turned to internet protocol as the vehicle for transmitting voice data over a da transit in data networks that's not the question correct use for voice use for voice ok right over a over a data network you're correct that the claim doesn't exclude  pathetically that i think that the clean construction of internet protocol while not expressly referring to datagram structure implicitly does i want to know what aspect of your argument would remain or maybe all of it but how does that affect it because because i'm not sure you're right about saying that the board at the institution stage when construing that a claim and rejecting the insertion of a datagram limitation was actually  excluding the possibility that that was already in place so with respect to the data graham vs virtual circuit argument i don't think it's it's immaterial to the board's ultimate finding there were two ways that you could modify cameral the board in its decision recognized that you  could have a wholesale swap out of the network and instead of having an a t m network there you could put in an internet network or with the two pieces of art that we have to put in the because the claims don't exclude having a land between two pockets which telephones but the second way that you can make the combination is by running i a voice data that's been converted to ip protocol over the existing a t m network and in fact that's what one of the primary benefits of going towards the internet protocol was that's what it was used for was designed to allow you to use the internet protocol and it was at a level of abstraction we're didn't care what the what the underlying circuit what's so the second way that you would modify cameral is to take the voice data convert it to an internet protocol and then run it over cameras m network and that's not excluded by the claims either and in fact is that the how how does that differ from was it  something but it made him right so the the the principal thrust of his arguments to the board was that well you you would never run ip over cameral because camera  was directed to reducing lag and if you ran ip over cameral well that would increase like that was the really the primary thrust of the ips argument to the board in our reply and to that a public switch telephone network converting to ip sending it over a lan to a generic it's what i'm i think we're not communicating well because i'm not trying to understand what  in the a t m network you could take a voice data that has been converted to internet protocol which is in the claims and then you can transmit that over an a t m network so on this and the board recognized this ip is the direction that everybody was going for global data communication including voice and the whole a hell five argument is that even at that time people were looking for ways for an a t m network to help it to run ip over an a t m network and that's what else life was for so i think we have to step back and look at the very broad scope of the claims here and what the board found of the substantial evidence for the behind the board's decision there is no dispute as to what the references teach and the only thing that the board found that the only thing missing from cameral is that the second protocol is an internet protocol that sit in the board found that the only  gap by showing that internet protocol is used as a vehicle to transmit voice data over a network and that in fact the only thing they don't want me is lacking is the second conversion back to a telecommunications protocol with those undisputed facts and the broad scope of the claim the fact that the claim isn't didn't invent a way to do this he claimed the concept and throughout missions of his time he explosively expressly over and over relies on conventional servers conventional data networks conventional converters and by nine hundred ninety six the obvious choice for transmitting the board found that the obvious choice for transmitting and the other party and that the question is not for us at least is not whose factory correct i take it your argument is the question is was the substantial evidence in the record to support the way the board came that set you're sinking precisely and the question as i understand it from the string i would someone in the nineteen ninety six of the proper skill in this are to have done with that insulation suggests that's correct that's correct although we differentiate guessing about board relied on both of the experts here dr jones was level threes expert dr weinstein was his expert and both of those experts agreed that by nine ninety six the internet was coming to prominence in the board relied on those statements properly from the experts and ip had the opportunity to depose dr jones noticed his deposition and then chose not to depose him in the end the board also there's also documentary evidence supporting the board's decision and perhaps the best documentary evidence is  the peterson reference says that we have presented ip as the only protocol for local internetworking and then that page goes on to say that well there are proponents for m and they say you know that a t m is the way to go the virtual circuit fixed length packets but then it goes on to say that well there are people that are proponents of ip and they see a t m as just another technology over which you can run ip i'm reading from peterson right now we have to row i went where on that page i am on fifteen forty three if you come down probably about just above half way they see a t m this is the proponents of ip they see them as just another technology over which you can run ip after all ip has been run over every other technology that's come along so i should didn't refer to the internet it's not until it's a continuation in in part an added material in the one thousand nine hundred six application where they bring in ip and there they rely simply on conventional th direction that the industry is headed and the only thing that machines he is claiming is the broad concept not how to do it but the broad concept of saying well you use ip as your as your p ultimate conclusion that the obvious choice by nine hundred ninety six for transmitting voice data over a data network would have been ip it was a play will play well it's just directed to