errors in this case that demand reversal or at least we may not be first legally or is when the border concluded that the reference to boyd was the work of another this is about showing that boyd is not proper prior art or want to be because it's not the work of another i do agree that they should look at the boy disclosure and the boy claims but the relevant portions relied upon by the petitioner below were from the specifications not from the voided climbs so we're talking fundamentally about disclosure in a specification and the fact that mr boyd is listed as an inventor does not create a presumption that he  that the relevant portions are his work and not the work of another but that increase does not require an affirmative disclaimer from the inventor owner of no that's an evidentiary point i thought you were making a burden so that would be relevant if there was an absence of other evidence but there's there's other evidence that that was considered a measure of quality rocca not what is relied on for the six that in a reference patent being invoked under one zero two even if it's just the specification part of it which it usually is was really something that a named inventor had nothing to do with was not a koan ventre of what is described in that specification passage in the reference pattern that sure seems like something that challenger saying would have to traffic that you rely on i think that reasonably might change the board's factual finding either about diligence or about whether boyd whether that his invention appeared in the boy patent and why they didn't go after tyco and as he explained to them in the transcript they were relying on tyco too many facts for this component which was essential for a number of their products that are under to try to introduce the entire deposition have known or waited like three months after the petitioners reply was filed right to trial is there a reason that you waited and is there a reason that the board would have been justified you know they were there under strict time limits and they want to move forward i mean if you would come in six months later and just said hey by the way to meet the entire thing i mean is there some problem for you in terms of the time that lapsed if you like come forward you know you and i wish we could file that sooner i've never come across that circumstance and i think as soon as we determined well that's a lot of time given that we've got a one you know we were there under god near three months is not a small amount of time i think it was three months i may be wrong about that that's not right or wrong ok yes it would have been preferable the submitted sooner but the rules required that the the testimony be submitted once we determined well but isn't there some amount of time that would that you would forfeit or waive your challenge because you waited so long to call that problem to the board's attention there has to be some time but it isn't it is within discretion the general exercise their discretion to allow evidence into the record keep it into the record i think in this case the genesis transcript is not just typical evidence i think it's highly relevant evidence that goes to some of the board's criticisms and given the public policy of presenting and having a record or a full record we believe they should have kept the transcript as part of the record so what did the  from tom how much time i think we were talking about three months after the reply was your hearing how long past the filing of the transcript  and when you say as soon as we realized i mean would you have had notice of the filing of the of the transcript if you did you didn't have no god never seen a transcript not fully filed it is peter proceeding that i've been involved in and so is there a general requirement before the board that anything that's filed it's also served on you your claims to go to the waterproof nature i mean it does say waterproof i take that if it is an electrical component but i just don't see anything else in the claims that that dumb call upon in order to have support and click calls upon the preamble of the claim it is a matter of the words the clean your honor that is correct but the problem they were addressing and there's federal circuit it's it's plainly ok to submit excerpts of a deposition and that the board has other procedures and rules by which parties can supplement those submissions and i don't understand what is the distinction in your view under the rule between testimony and sion of that is you can submit the perfect textbook or excerpts so that you not clutter coloring the record with you know large documents that that end up being filed and that why are we talking here just about the testimony the petitioner submitted those excerpts in support of our position as evidence and then the arctic yet we do not have an opportunity to file another brief much later as as the court has pointed out here and without leave submitted the entire transcript without explanation and the board subsequently expunged them stating that we are to captain out of authorization of f but you're not reading this rule is creating any obligation for your side to have put in the deposition transcript no i don't believe there was and frankly if we have to put in the entire transcript of the submission essentially ask for a search like for example in which they could call a cigarette telling us if we disagree with your reading of the rule and we send this back to the poor and say they were wrong and expanding the transcript and they should of yes and in the end and what really is is another question here is this is their own witness so that they want to introduce cross examination testimony which presumably contain for their detail of the facts and statements that are reflected  so there is additional detail that mr janet offered relating to the subjects in his declaration and my point is why could that be if that if that detail is so critical as arctic air is stating now why was that not presented in the declaration in the first not i don't know about that i thought you were arguing that they should have at least that they should have then asked for a server reply yes if they wanted to submit or comment on those deposition transcripts of the outside of the portions that were addressed so your position is even if you had filed that is an exhibit because my reading the the rule may be different than yours but even if you had filed the testimonies and exhibit the only way that would have gotten to papers previously submitted no new evidence or arguments may be presented at oral argument and that sort of trial practice guide the federal register so so that's precisely my point it's it's it's sort of what is the end when they said perhaps parking catchiness admitted this by the due date in the scheduling order for motions for observations can you submit evidence along with not a fair characterization of the testimony perhaps the witness may have corrected or further explained something with respect to that particular item of testimony that is a mechanism by which hard to get jan to file a motion saying they have cited this aspect of the testimony that's not a fair representation of the testimony here's some additional testimony for context and so that is a deadline in the scheduling order that it is a trial practice guy talk about that or is that in one of the actual c f r regulations i know  the motion for the observation you have a brief explanation of what the basis is and why are doing ok i assume the scheduling order then allowed they would have been timely to file a motion probs herbaceous after your east your papers were certainly that want to respond to where your friend started which was pad as we mentioned in our papers it's our position that they should be precluded from doing that as a matter of law because mr janet is not immune to adventure but put aside the matthews put aside that issue at least for  the relevant portions of boyd were not actually something that boyd contributed to so my understanding of how the bird works in this instance is that it is ultimately the petitioner's burden becomes art to cats burden a production to come in with its bid to marshal its evidence and present that to try and suggest that mr jana she is responsible for whatever portions of the prior pattern they're was it's essentially that if you tell somebody something that they already know they didn't learn it from you so i architect focuses a lot about the fact of here's what we disclosed to boy what the board was really focusing on was well how do we know the boy didn't think of it first or just simply no evidence in the record to suggest or to demonstrate where the information in the oil pan originated from but if but if you have  evidence record on the crucial point doesn't of party that would be you with the burden of persuasion lose no because the void is as the word noted is presumed to be priority inventor ship is presumed to be correct it has some evidence that satisfied the burden of production now we have evaluated question whether boyd actually had anything to do with the relevant portions of the boid spec and you know they had the burden of  persuasion on that question no i believe the board properly evaluated it and looked at the evidence that that that arctic check came in with and looked at the evidence that was in the record and ultimately determined that the evidence of the record does not allow them to make a finding that boyd did not invent some or all of it was not the inventor of some or all of the disclosure in the void pat the portions that petition well they did and i mean that their guy came in and said it was his it is but it was at that point i mean i guess the question is is that satisfy the burden of production enough so that it goes back to you all and you were at least have to come in information of mr oil because mr oil could have done that on his own independently and if you want to dig into the actual evidence which we also challenge i think the most the most interesting piece of evidence here in this timeline is that the earliest dated piece of evidence is a drawing by mr  up here which is dated in april april second of of two thousand and one so all of these communications that articulate is relying on of communications between takes on arctic have occurred after this this drawing an appendix sixteen twenty two and so if you want to dig into the details here of what the record was on the board as they went through and they evaluated the evidence and are to kept not only needs to have some evidence showing that some disclosures were made to mr boyd but they need some evidence suggesting that mr boyd did not already know or did not do what is close to the pad prior to his communications with mr jantsch and that is where hard to cap was lacking in terms of the burden of production and when you do actually look at the documents that are in the record the earth this really started with that i just mentioned the the design the design the deposition is that it's incomplete you're not you are are you are for you are not allowed to attach to that observation the additional material from the same it so it's not for providing statements of testimony that is not at that time found that stated that deposition transcripts should be filed in full if they are relied upon by the parties f there's also no evidence of the record suggesting that boyd invented the p d f and so we feel that the evidence is sufficient to remove what is a