inner parties really exam is over with but we're going to do an x party leaves and they can do that perhaps but that's not what they did it's not perhaps they put right if they made the determination that there was a reasonable doubt to believe that there was a lack of of proceeding the p t o followed one way it didn't follow the rules for that way as a practical matter what differences well there are there are differences between the ex parte in the inner part ace reexamining terms you have but as far as you're concern i guess all i can say is they invoke a particular procedure under the statute the statute imposes requirements before they can invoke that procedure those requirements were not met perhaps they could have done got taken a different route if they problem of processing and transmitting the huge amount of data required to send digital images you know seven one patent addresses that problem by using coding techniques that allow for data compression and by sending a single entity or vector that identifies the locations of all of the coded coefficients in the end in a block of image data from stroke a very different approach breaks up a block of image data into groups  subsets consisting of less than all of the coefficients and sends multiple vectors through that and allow the block to be reconstructed now across is preferred embodiment is to divide a block into specific regions and send a separate submit they also apply obvious nice tight reasoning to an anticipation case they focused on two things the first was a passage where kraus says you know if you're dealing with a whole block that's a lot of combinations of image data a it is not easy to compute all of that so my solution is to is to divide the block up into regions and you send you know smaller sets of data ah with vectors for each now the board took that not easy comment and said that reflects that  contemplated in the prior art that you could do this well first of all saying that something is contemplated in a prior is not a disclosure of a specific way of doing it what cross was doing was identifying the problem the problem is th much data to deal with and my solution is let's break it up moreover even that passage doesn't disclose sending a single vector for all of the all of the combinations or all of the  this analysis become a passing passage just talks about dealing with a region and sending a sixteen bit factor from the region in a sixteen bit vector can't transmit all the image data for an entire block and that's all cross fox off throughout the specification considerations get into an anticipation analysis they sink and then the p t o echoes this in their brief there's nothing in krauss that says you couldn't apply his method to an entire block well anticipation requires an affirmative disclosure of the claimed invention not a general statement that you know i don't think it's impossible moreover process method is whether he's dealing with a block or a region is to generate is to generate of that they're representing breaking up the transform coffin's into sets or subsets or groups as the term cross uses and to send those rather try to send it all at once the other thing that the people kept pointed to was our claims one and two krauss said the claim claimed to talks about dividing into regions and having a vector for each and the claim one doesn't talk doesn't say you have to divide it into regions well that's true but what claim one is talking about is a group of coefficients qualif for transmission from the block not not all the coefficients qualified not the coefficients qualified a group of them cross users group and subset throughout the specification interchangeably refer to some but not all of the of the  place it's talking about a different method which is sending separate vectors for different subsets of the transform coefficients now on appeal the p t o i think recognizing the problems with the orange  analysis as an alternative argument which they had met or did not express really discuss the first problem with that of course is you can only review the rationale that the board did actually discuss so if there's any confusion about that at a minimum the case should be sent back for the board to the examiners answer that kind of refers to weigh up but that's not good enough they there was no discussion of it at all and moreover it doesn't solve the problem because this passage that the ph young relies on appeal and this is column seven lines twenty it's it is talking about the very concept of sending fewer than all at once with the preferred embodiment of sending you know dividing it up formally and having vectors for each so it it's as a matter of process and it's improper process it's not easy to compute all this in that passage proust does not say how to how to do it it doesn't talk about sending a single entity or single vector for the entire block that's the invention of the zero seven one patent process partly this is hard to do because of the large number of potential combinations so i've got a better way i'm going to different way and my way is regions and end vectors multiple regions and vectors for a single block so that doesn't do it the other of the other thing cross the other thing the board says let me let me find the exact passage here the board says that you know the examiner finds that there is nothing within cross it suggests that the cross technique must only be applied to sub regions well that's not an anticipation finding it may say it may not say when you can't do this but it doesn't say you can't which is what you'd have to have for anticipation border doesn't point to anything where it's talking about a single vector for the entire for all the image data in the entire block and saying that crosses method can be applied to a whole block which the board says well that's that's true in a sense the cross method is having subsets or groups of the data not all of it at once so whether you say you're applying his method to the entire block work to regions within the block it's still not the all seven one pet because it's not show me where it says the whole block well starting looking for them within a full block or it's looking for them within a specific region and then later on line thirty eight says the group of coefficients that could be selected in the block region and life forty forces this the subset language but i think all that refers to is that this that crosses method could be applied to identify any any sort of traits or coefficient seven language was always part of the exam or for objection and there's nothing in the board's decision that was against that and the boards are still consistent with that we don't think this is a situation where i you know i'm going beyond what the board's decision under three twelve c we don't believe that that because this goes to the the institution of the reexamined we don't believe the shura section but if i mean even if you want if you want to reach the ultimate issue i don't think there's any i don't think there's any think if you look at the examiner's answer first of all the board refers says you know all in the examiner said that there is no reason you can't apply this this method to do an entire block as a general citation to the examiners answer examiner dancer talks about column seven in very general terms doesn't focus on this language in particular so i don't think you can say that this is that this argument you just heard is that reflects the board's reasoning it's not with the board said it or focus on different parts of crouse and not this part moreover saying that you as it is i said when i was up or before saying that you can apply apply krauss's method to a block or region doesn't answer the question because even in that column seven passage a counsel was referring to you what it talks about is a subset of politicians selected for transmission from a block or region not the co efficient selected not even the subset selected it's a subset and that's the heat because what crossus talking about is dealing with fewer than all at one time of rather than trying to process and transmit the entire block at once and i would direct the court's attention to how eleventh the passage at the beginning in about line twelve through thirty five or so and i'm not going to read it to the court but this is sort of the summary of the process wrapped up before getting to the claims you know it should now be appreciated that here's my present invention and the important part is it talks about sending vector code words to reconstruct a single block of image data so it's