the two cases for our people this afternoon are fourteen one seven six seven and fourteen one seven eight eight academies reference publishing versus apple  three fourteen is whether there is a reasonable likelihood of the petitioner prevailing homepage one to challenge claims so three fourteen the only relates to making final and not appealable that question whether or not there is a things that are not within the invalidation authority that are beyond just the decision to institute i'm just wondering at the camp the other matters that would not necessarily mean you're limited you're as a judge lawyer is that you're limiting pointed out in our proofs we can come here before you say turn around some subject and find them because they got it wrong when they did the reasonable likelihood analysis which is precisely the language of three fourteen but for three boards got to make an ultimate determination irrespective of the reasonable likelihood standard about whether or not it has the authority to move forward and to its to and issue a final written decision so those are two different standards and therefore the pastor the institution the board took up the issue under section three twenty five and and determined that very similar language three fifteen bids for twenty five a one states that the director may not institute reflected in three sixteen c to conduct each dinner party review instituted under this chapter that the institution does go to the section that sets forth and the people have statutory authority that is starting is to conduct each interparty review instituted under this chapter since it seems to me that if  the petitioner that because three fifteen be addressed any time limitation that is for some reason that makes it not a larger issue however given for sixteen c and furthermore the cases that are cited see it's clear that this court has jurisdiction and should review the final written decision in this particular case we came before here on the final written decision on this issue to bring forward that there was no evidence in the record amounts to an evidentiary showing no one is arguing that nevertheless the argument is that under rule one all four of the regulations that's all that's required to meet the requirements of three fifteen big as you pointed out an hour and a half three thing that would be basically an effort to completely rewrite the administrative procedure act it is the administrative procedure act which sets forth what the standard that this court will use to review final that decision on a technicality by arguing its appeal as to whether or not the board properly into both the will right with the question of whether or not it's reviewable is a technicality i guess in some solar but not really not from a reset here so why don't we turn dealing with the boards and here and the already so why is dismissed not full in that category and the reason being is because in first fata the the court first did acknowledge that three twenty forty one did create a bar for review ability for institutions of vision but what they carved out was for decisions that related to the board's ultimate authority ultimate invalidation authority and the reason being that in that state there was an issue which the court found was review today about what the board concluded in g t and asks about the jurisdiction the question about involving a time limit with why is does that not give us a clear path to say given the board's own view about time limits being within their jurisdictional of the already that puts it within the verse of the exception create a new c e o well i think we do have to look at how the court reasoned but it found that that particular cured or washed away the initial deficiency in the institution i mean technically i guess apple could've also filed an earlier attention if it wasn't the part which in this case it wasn't but it was particular pattern and the point is that the board still could have thought he could still exercise an invalidation authority in reviewing the past that a shell juror what the board talks about address addiction limited in g t and x which is the board didn't have jurisdiction because the issue itself was not timely why that doesn't fall into the same box you're saying that language is the ability to invalidate it happens in this case to be patent invalidated at the behest of another party where there was no conceivable time or limitation that's a critical distinction but if but if you read t t p t n x which i'm sure you have wasn't isn't the only way to reconcile that case with this they say the board was telling us that they don't have if the issue was untimely that the jurisdictional question and they would not have the authority to ultimately invalidate the but if i could address or jurisdictions you can next question your honor cheechoo next involves three twenty five a one that is not the time or that is a provision that says if you want to sue in this record you can come here a time bar is what we have in three fifteen b and there clear statement the courts and even in fact time limitation doesn't count what we have here is a may not institute a fall far short of your stated rule required by all regional so even if you are willing to take it you take the view that these firm on a number of grounds then argue the statute is plain unambiguous in assigning the burden of proof on the time or issue to a pattern over at fault for three basic reasons congress used to come off term in the statute  clearly and unambiguously says hammers you think this guy time barred it's your duty to come forward with the evidence and the absence of evidence in this record of the falls on a key even if you disagree with my statutory granted to the agency to resolve the ambiguity is its position reasonable there is nothing a reasonable of a certification burden shifting steepness not anything in the statute that they can point to that says that's an permissible and under that scheme we did absolutely and then the d and we have stablished and if he doesn't respond or shown that indemnities are not bound by judgments against the end of the tour so they came forward with legally irrelevant evidence to try to show in a scuffle where reasons their claim that there's no substantial evidence to support the absence of the time or it's just a question they can exercise that who has the burden of proof and both under the statute and of the regulation they have the even if it had been executed would be irrelevant to the question of whether apple could be a stop by judgment against quick office means that they came forward with a clue woefully inadequate showing the board acquires in consistently across a number of cases including the decision should be reversed but if i could go back to where i started the other end of the director's counsel referred to this we are talking about one of the rationals one thing to do in  review scheme including the provisions that authorizes courts review are final written decisions focus exclusively on the merits of the patent abilities terminations and that makes good sense because the board's guns the bother of resolving the bolivia claims the public has an interest in knowing if these claims are valid or invalid the board has taken all undertaking the effort result that question and a party of never before you saying why that from the books is there anything wrong with it they don't cite one reason to suggest that the