behalf of appellant baxter before getting into the specific issues on appeal it is down disputed that the fear vonte reference does not anticipate any challenge claim because there is no teaching of the associate of lee stored limitation hearing monday disclosed contagions and we and then there's a blank i mean missing work we see the evidence showing there disclosure persuasive i'm purportedly evidence is at least a temporary association between weight and image data however merely saying two things simultaneously does not evidence associate of storage of those things imagine for example having multiple windows open up at the same time on a computer screen c s p n and doppler radar for instance merely seeing the content of both simultaneously does not evidence an associate of storage between the two to salvage the issue regarding what figure ten teaches bt sites to evidence the displayed weight data is stored in buffer memory a point that it did not actually make in this petition summerfield this judge well again yes  few questions on page fifty of the joint appendix you argue that the patent claims cancelled and reassure void ever this apparently was in the same situation as he would have been in its original application for a patent that had been rejected on page nineteen of the grey brief you say if a penalty loses the right to exclude others it do you get them to forget it no your honor but that's really not the test st of all we're talking about a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art who is charged with knowing what the prior art teaches if something is taken out of the prior art that is no longer part of what that hypothetical person would know and we have other examples of that in the statute for example prior invention prior invention is prior art unless it's abandoned suppressed or concealed presumably the abandonment occurs some time after the prior invention so there's an example of something that used to be in the prior art but is no longer and it's the same issue that person of hypothetical skill would no longer be charged with knowing whatever that was that was  are you making a distinction without a difference no your honor because claim nineteen adds to the requirements of claim one that method a to be associated with a dose dose information claim one separately requires the associate of limitation of claim one and the same is true for the citation of that figure in the six hundred and ninety three petition having to do with claim to again nothing to do with the associated we stored limitation ok and that have in mind he was talking about what existed basically up through the present and he was not a position to make a distinction as to what existed in a way two thousand and twelve and currently and that was our point the board exceeded its statutory authority and cobbling together its own challenge ground using previously unidentified figure ten as the centerpiece and actuality what occurred below is even though the d did not cite figure ten for the associated lee which the challenged each claim is based and identifies the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim that is not what happened here these omission a figure ten with regard to the associate of lee stored limitation prevents the board from a lying upon that same figure as purportedly teaching a rendering obvious that limitation that the board in fact relied on that figure nonetheless is violated the three  irrespective of what notice the patent owner may ultimately have and what arguments it may be afforded an opportunity to respond to well so be explained i mean the figure ten does of pierre in that petition challenge ground figure ten as teaching or rendering obvious the associate of the stored limitation of figure one of the claim claim one of the two patents and if we think about what this would mean if the if the if the the opposite were true a party could literally copy the entirety of a patent in the background section and then say there it all is and we can therefore morph whatever is in the background section to fashion later challenge grounds as we see separately the board improperly shifted the burden to back to explain why figure ten does not show associate of storage doesn't contest that such a burden shift would be improper rather it argues that the board was merely pointing out after everything even does not contest the proposition the simultaneous appearance in figure ten says nothing about associate of storage rather b d refers to its original position arguing without any evidentiary support the memory device fifteen if you are violent he may be modified to provide for associate of storage and that this modification is not complex baxter on the other hand cites to its computer expert that such modification does indeed computer expertise even assuming one without computer skills would know to reprogram memory device fifteen such reprogramming according to the board would only result in the storage of wasted images quote as the board found obviousness based on three different grounds so there are multiple paths to hermit's here and as best i understand bashers position is that the structure of a supply brief indicates is making one general argument the claim construction argument and then for the remaining arguments if alexander is prior art you don't really need to address the a p a and substantial evidence arguments  yes this is just well let me ask you the same housekeeping question to which your friend agreed is that missing word is find is it not yes it is ok to any of the arguments but let me just start with the issue of claim construction that is the one general argument this issue has is narrowed substantially you know baxter prevailed on the primary point of contention major i think it's fallen by the wayside those terms were just outside of the term that was being construed so the board didn't repeat them in its construction so the fight on appeal really focuses on the term associate and you know baxter saying that the way to an image must be stored in relationship to one another but it's really not clear what the board did wrong or how it would make any difference you know the argument that there's just garden variety storage is a straw man and you know the board did require relationship here the weight and image have to be stored in the memory such that the processor can match combine that which is for images now xander with the weight information as well some feel rich on today so that they're stored in relation to each other by signing them the same identifier and it's really the same  the dos id disclosure that can be associated with weight and image again there is a relationship between the two as they are stored by assigning them that same identifier which then serves the purpose of the p because it allows the processor to match that information for when it needs to be reviewed later by the remote pharmacist and under the you know be our eyes standard here and  not defined in the specification mentioned only a few times and not in a way that requires any particular type of association we think the board's construction is well  and you know one other point of dispute i think that that emerged more clearly in the required brief was the issue of of claim nineteen and the meditated closures you know as the board has been saying since it initially adopted its construction the specification here suggests a link to the storage of meditated and i think the way we would say it is that dependent claims and that particular storage arrangement is really a species of the genus of associate of storage that the claimed and in claim one and in fact you know baxter and page forty two dollars of its opening brief is citing these meditative your friend on the other side spent much of the time dealing with the issue of whether or not the argument of figure ted was preserved in the petition except rested you want to address that briefly sure so figure ten a few points you figure ten is one of only two figures cited in the introductory description something that i think may have gotten obscured here is the claim short for associate if we st d the page three hundred and thirteen of the appendix sites paragraphs eighty nine through ninety five of your avanti and those are the paragraphs describing what is shown in figure ten putting the syringe back on the scale to check the final weight and comparing it to the target weight and then also figure ten is included in the discussion of claim nineteen and we should have been clear on this and our brief we're talking about is this relates to this issue of claim nineteen really just being a species one particular way too associated we store and so sighting in connection with that dependent claim we think puts it in play for consideration on the independent claim and so in addition to serve what's in the petition and figure ten it's also important to look at the board's decision here and it was only after i think the way do you see it laid out in the obviousness section that the heartland of the analysis is following exactly what is laid out in that declaration and then figure ten which is cited in the petition and which they have had a chance to respond to comes into that analysis as further support so we don't think that that comes anywhere close to the type of newgrounds that you see in  cases where this court has found a problem where you saw an entirely new reference being cited or where there was just a fundamental change of the theory within that particular reference you know the other thing is that that all of that folds by the wayside as i said there are multiple paths here and so you know that really relates to the obviousness over fear vontae alone but we have  combination with alexander and it's job or task again a fire or the combination with alexander and even leo it's ghosts id that provide a entirely another path to affirm and that i don't think is still in the patent stealing force there contrasts with the historic fact that the patent had been granted and that i won't belabor the other points we make in our brief in terms of alexander milburn and the history and the logic here you know there was a brief discussion of the qualifications of our experts you know i think that the core point there is we have an undisputed definition of opposing dr young clearly meets that definition has lots of experience selecting tele pharmacy equipment for the department of defense he was c e o of a total pharmacy software company he clearly has the relevant expertise to give the perspective of a skilled artisan and you know in terms of some of the implementation details you know  found in the patent itself and so i think baxter is in a difficult position in terms of saying someone would have struggled with the implementation details when you don't see those disclosures in the  mississauga's this is a housekeeping question that you may not be in a position to answer but there appears to be a related appeal to this case that going to be likely argued in april number twenty das paul baxter then raised its argument about whether alexander can be a one of the too easy to reference so so as the through the course of the briefing sort of one point of intersection did emerge so however this panel decides that issue should then control how that one issue is resolved and the other people ok thank you you know i'm happy to answer any questions that the panel has he said that there are citations to paragraphs that describe figure ten from fear of antti there eighteen paragraphs cited there on page three hundred and thirteen with regard to the associate we stored memory precisely zero of them pertain to motivation to store weight and image data in association very clearly below the board found the motivation or the evidence of associate of storage of weight in image data at least temporarily only in figure ten  to be stored individually with a dos identifier we can imagine a physical file where one places images and weights therein with no indication of what goes with what that's the same thing here if you are associating weight and image data only with a dose identified fire it is impossible to know what weight goes with what image finally with regard to the person of ordinary skill in the art it was incumbent upon it wanted to rely upon computer teachings in the prior art to define the person of ordinary skill as having the expertise to understand those teachings that it did not do that belies the notion  the same hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would know what to do with computer references to make the modifications the board suggested below to memory device fifteen well i am i misreading the record i thought that the parties had the art of yes your honor but the problem again is if the d wanted to rely upon that person or a hypothetical skilled person to understand computer teaching they should have define