you shouldn't take it personally that he's throwing your and again you want three minutes right devices to find that the situation of a single claim devices even though the references did not disclose such competition for better the most combination of devices fourteen of twenty four and sixty in twenty six would defeat the very purpose of the private community to keep the identity of the i get rest of twenty four twenty six private so even though the devices can be physically physically connected that doesn't actually mean that in functionality if this permissible for the purpose of for the purpose of determining indication that the references contemplate that the combination except perhaps for one for one particular aspect so in this case and how expert testified there is no indication that that's or that bessa contemplated the combination of fourteen and twenty four and demonstrating that document i would like to address the the question a little bit more the question that i mentioned that besser actually does not and dissipate the claimed receiving and sending functions and the reason is because there is no single device that combination of devices and i think this couple things that i just want to point out to the court goes from bees or specification and from the one eighty one specification first of the these are itself specifically contemplates and discloses that devices are going to be associated with one another it says it very explicitly a column eleven lines twenty six twenty eight content to fourteen to sixteen and that's entirely consistent with the one a one specification the one in one specifications contemplates that a particular limited physical contract with can include a combinations quote for convenience or or not and you see that reflected a column forty though is that enough associated or or does it have to column fifty one line twenty with respect to do so to sort so i think this issue of combination it is a little bit of a red herring because again all the claims requires that one be associated with the other and they plainly are and even if that weren't enough the court of course is made clear that you know functionality doesn't have to be limited to a particular black box particularly when you're talking about what this court described in williamson versus citrix as a non sport like device and so this case board having to rely on a combining of the features or just simply the fact that you know the privy no name service even to provide you know secure server thirty one s is necessarily associated with firewall thirty because if you want to send something about a secure name which once again they with secure name and other limitations they are trying to bootstrap other limitations from what are very broad claims claims that were prosecuted while they were in litigation against my client and they're trying to bootstrap in order to save those claims but regardless of the board found that preview no satisfy the requirement that if you had to have additional functionality even be beyond a conventional name server that that additional functionality was provided that did more than the conventional scheme precisely because the name server thirty two returned into the firewall the firewall then returned it encrypted to the through to the requester which is different from the conventional issue that we discussed in the in the last argument the board did specifically address all of the hard humans that they had made with respect to claim the issues with respect to claim to because they didn't raise something separate about secure name service and the board addressed what they what they did raise what's what's your response to the argument that them pretty basic argument that while it wasn't their burden  to that reference and i would also say that the board specifically pointed to our arguments and reference arguments which did of course explain why those limitations were satisfied the main point that my colleague made with respect to matter way was sit with was on the treatment of the sick message of the desire to securely communicate and they don't argue that matter way fails to disclose that limitation they just argued that the board on appeal affirmed on different grounds from the examiner's rejection and that's just simply not so if you look at it and you compare compare yourself at appendix twenty five fifty nine that's the examiner's discussion of the issue and if that were the examiner recognize that the first communication to the second device was in the form of the call message and the board makes the same point at appendix twenty seven to twenty eight communications involving the connect message that the examiner refers to prior to that were not messages with the in device they were messages with the global server so the boards reasoning at appendix twenty seven twenty eight is exactly the same as what the examiner found in twenty five fifty nine i believe i've now addressed all of the issues that were raised by my colleague if there are questions that the court has on these or other points and of course have to address them but the board