you have the wrong and it's materials in the blue brief with respect to one hundred forty five he should be careful about that because it's in quite convenient to us to these appeals raised first the issue of review ability of the boards determination under three fifteen b that there is not a time are to the proceedings in addition to the review ability we believe that there is raised the question of evidence whether the evidence before the board justifies this court in determining not only is that issue review all of that the evidence shows that in fact the claims are time hard and  the alternative that if the evidence is not sufficient at this point that each of the proceedings should be remitted to the people to the board for appropriate discovery to the able the board and ultimately this court to determine the facts that of course the work may choose to proceed on to the merits of the determinations of invalidity and as you are as directed will be prepared to discuss that in a subsequent par of course as a court is well aware the decision of the review ability of the time are under three fifteen b is impacted by the supreme court's recent decision and kuo so as the court knows in that case the court observe first of all there is a powerful and strong presumption of review ability of agencies actions by an article three court in order to overcome that presumption the supreme court reminded us that there must be clear and convincing us the supreme court's language clear in convincing indication of congressional intent to curb judicial review obviously that in addition exists in section three fourteen of the american  referring of course to the academy's decision of ten months ago and what is different is that we now have direction from the supreme court that tells us that appellate review found in three fourteen in the outside of that section it must be closely tied to the decision of institution but the second matter the corporate explain to us would not be barred from review would be violations of statutes to scope extends beyond this section three fourteen the decision of the application of the time bar of three fifteen b extends beyond the decision to as the board has recognized it is a fact insensitive inquiry and it frequently merits development and decision based on the facts a deuced at the trial stage that fits precisely with the drug briars admonition the violation of the statute that extends beyond the prohibition of appeal of three fourteen he is subject to judicial review there is another or fundamental reason the supreme court congressional rationale for limiting review of institution decisions and they were basically that the experts in the p t o should be entitled to exercise their expertise as experts in patent law and as experts in technology and making the decision whether or not to institute review of their own work those considerations though do not apply to the legal issues presented by the time bar of three supreme court went out of its way to explain that decision involves issues of patent law namely the dependency relationship between a depend a claim and another the claim that it depends on and the two additional claims that the board found satisfied one twelve so that exactly was an issue that law and the supreme court would out of this way to explain that it was within the our decision was on reviewable without the benefit of the gods of gozo the court in a trading days specifically found that at the time our decision does not relate to an issue  it was described as simply a rule of procedure something that it then fires the class of people that are and are not entitled to file a petition for review that's exactly what puts this squarely within justice briar's description of a statute whose scope extends beyond the review ability prohibition of three fourteen he could get you to turn to clean fifteen i think you may be right about the the technical that's the better technical meaning of language but my question that is why should he read the language that way thanks sense as a practical matter it would not you can't could have a system that is at the end of the day not pertinent to the question of whether the claimant can change that language and whether say oh the allegedly invalidating reference discloses a link to ok that was the basis of the wor labeling the figure that your honor the church i was referring to is actually labeled figure whether it's with the bottom of the figure rather than tough but if you look at those two figures together figure ten which refers to the chart above it and figure whether k and when you and so when you get to the end and you have a ends and the one of the three options so it written in terms of at least one of you can have the option where you're doing a bit map and all you have the situation is the length of the second situation where you're only identify you know the figure within this claim that there's no indication that he intended to exclude figure ten from from this claim that and they did it by virtue of the at least one of instruction they said you could have at least one of charts figures for five six and nine ten eleven already accomplished that those three parts then i understand that and that seems to be correct but my problem is with each of the language decision to initiate and parties review three fifteen b is by its very terms describes when the patent office may or may not insist you have here are literally uses the even closer then the very section that the court was looking at in also which was three twelve and three twelve eight which in that in that section it was three it your honor the decision under three fifteen he is not limited to the decision to institute it occurs more frequently at the trial stage it must because it requires in many instances the development of the facts in this case the application for discovery which was denied the motion for read here and which was denied the mandamus to this core which was than i had without prejudice to raising the bar after a final whose scope extends beyond three fourteen briefly on the merits your honor always spent quite a bit of time discussing the claim fifteen there are other reasons why the single reference of it may accomplish the same objective of the find whether the transmitter is dealing with a map or a list but it does it in a different way than the claims determine beforehand of the packet to determine whether that packet contained voice or data and then the device disclosed and morley was hardwired  relevant data or voice to an appropriate hardwired decoder it is true that morley had as it's one of those objects the  the invention oh yes the transmitter to use a single format with all three types of that is a contrast with that and for that reason the board here in finding