court i want to try to get to the one on one issue i'm set aside of the issue of whether it is legally appropriate to make subsid do you stood up and said as a matter of these claims are directed to an abstract idea but this isn't this is another patent that was in this huge the case and the court expressly said it was not  abstract idea and so that you know you you didn't even say at this time and told me others different evidence you said as a matter of law the directed dabster so how do we how do we do that how do we say when another panel of this court has looked at found obvious just to we were to orient this court these are claims twenty nine thirty nine and forty nine and they were choir showing the last quantity claims associates the last treated quantity with a last trade of price the patent itself says that markets won't accept orders if it doesn't have at least the trade order price and the trader quantity  of the prior art and we also submit that something as trivial as providing some additional information that was known in the dark to to be using these buoys is not something that ought to be given away there's nothing in these claims that would indicate the presence of an inventive concept as i mentioned in the first argument the patent itself states that it can be implemented on sensually any computer i thought if i remember the back to read it translated version wasn't proffered in this case to the office is that right not about that where that point but it wouldn't matter because the date is sort of universally understood that wretched numbers mr interface as well as the market participant industry people how to connect to the interface and the exchange itself and if i can judge it and if you want to hear in the public seven asian print as their constitutional retroactively challenges that they're now raising to this court unlike the case that they cite it would not have been few time for them to raise these issues before the board because the board could have declined to institute review or could have jurisdiction to decide whether there's a seventh amendment right to a jury trial is something that administrative funny can decide as a matter of well being the board could have decided the issue and then declined to institute review if they agreed that it wasn't proper oh are you going to address the corroboration requirement that you argued yes ok yes so in the last ten years since the speed test nothing's changed there's no new evidence in the case here of the border aired because the border thought corroboration wasn't even for choir in the first instance they never did it say that or did it say that the combination because it points out that the document has its own date on the front do you'll agree that the combination of the date on the or you i'm not trying to i'm not going to sandbag you are you familiar with the nobel via care services case was that if she was in this court in september of two thousand and eighteen it's not your place because your race were filed prior to the reason it's a question of fact under the reason if i read the board's opinion as holding that the date on the document the likely date it was circulated and that's what that date with only suggest that passed when the document was generated internally the question is does a date that's not copyrighted does that indicate that because the out time out i get my washington post every day day and that's the problem the problem is that that date doesn't corroborate that testimony and in the ten years since that you speak trial we do not have any other evidence from the third party actually having them an lot of somebody who actually picked the manual up no e mails no testimony from any other party that's why they were telling the board you don't need corroboration and that's why the board never even looked at it and now like these saying oh are going to it's not publicly accessible to persons of ordinary skill in the art this is not ok a library kiddush if it's interested person three isn't that the standard interested person it's a person of ordinary the document there has to be some pathway and so in this case this is not a library case where you can go to the library and get it it's not a trade show case or some other public meeting so there's no pathway for a person of ordinary skill in the art to get the document and so here's the problem and this is the problem with the entire crew who is mr callaway she must say documents were distributed to him that's the problem the problem is the testimony is he said he handed out a few copies two to two hundred now he actually testified what he had what he the testimony originally original testimony was a first manual the given up to two hundred people but it's itself was up on the new york stock exchange right there's no actually there are no there's no evidence of that of whether the system was out no evidence at all there again the problem with their case is there rely on the testimony from college team or was he personally handed out a few copies the problem is we don't know who he gave the document to we don't know the name the board never made any findings that a person of ordinary skill the art could find that document even if it was given out to people that's the problem there is no link this case please are you i guess i'm confused are you saying for this to be publicly accessible any person of skill in the art would had to have been able to locate it or what if he actually gave it to five people who were undoubtedly people skill in the art that well i'm just trying to understand what you think the legal standard is i think in a case where you don't have a don't have that there were no findings all personal hornish build the ark would get to that t s b manual based on the testimony that collar she made gave it out to who knows god knows who we don't know who got it in a case where you're just giving it out and i think judge moore you get o there are i i mean i'm aware of federal circuit cases that talk about interested persons but i believe i believe the blue calypso and other cases later cases make clear that it centers on a person of ordinary skill they a from this court and we filed the twentieth james harris was there any evidence concerning the specific companies that we see the report like goldman sachs and there's no lynch there's no evidence in the record of who he gave it to got the document there's no evidence of who actually picked it up for the company there's no evidence that the company or anybody in the company would be a person of ordinary scholarly are even if they did gather wh possession proof for them adjustability if if if i have the document why do i need to prove that i had actually to it if the evidence was that the document  another patient to come and pick it up no because again if you think about it from the standpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the arc here in washington d c how would that that person or their skill in the ar find the pathway to the document even if it was at a bank in other words the lot isn't if the document was given to us is in the file of a company that a person of ordinary skill in the r could access the document brings it back that actually has the reasoning that the board used and the prop the problem is that that's speculation the board said well why couldn't somebody just walking down the street go to a t s a number and get it but the problem is there's no evidence in the record to support that that's the problem there's no evidence the only other means of record put in by mr kahler shima was that he handed it out to good we don't know who got it we don't know the testimony was i gave it to nurses and surgeons and doctors ok and the and this court rejected that because this court said there's no identify you didn't identify who got the document you just you testified that you just gave it out to people to nurses and to doctors the c r part and then and that was that that was a factual scenario where the document was just handed out and if you don't identify who got it she about how human testified to be that the document was distributed to two hundred companies but he later clarified that the companies actually picked them up allegedly picked them up and he handed out some copies matter of fact if the reference was given out to two hundred participants we know something about this but how do we what do you think the legal standard is something would have to be given to and how do we how do we know in this case given the audience be that that makes a publicly excessive old computer scientist because maybe one of their parents is or maybe they'll happen upon it somehow you understand my part i do and so so obviously my example is not this example but that's my concern i think if we look to go pro and you know well  handed out manuals to you know hundreds of traders and all that it stands to reason that the skilled person looking to improve or build a new trading interface would look to the materials associated with the existing interfaces in the marketplace including one of the most promising samples i took your stock exchange it wasn't just accessible to anyone in who attended the tokyo stock exchange or anybody who was interested it was only given out arguably these two hundred necessarily i mean the board did make findings however that the participants who receive these manuals would have had professionals who would be in the business of building it was for them again there's no