may please the court your honors and looking st to claim fifty five i think the st question in this appeal is whether a patent owner can admit that a claim imitation was taught by industry standard and specification must be one thing to the border area requiring more detail and the petitioners there was set forth in the supporting specification i think you can see it is most clearly in some sense on page twenty four dollars of the read brief  standard must and they polled didn't i tell a size that be implemented in order to practice the claim receiving and providing steps this is true even if those features are optional i e not mandatory under the p c m ca stand the future we're talking about here was optional i don't believe it was around now the features are built in them or implying that it was awful i don't believe the board found that the features cited were optional the board's holding on that one section that said may  languages as may but if you look at the boards language when they and they cite what they cite is that is a small portion of the card insertion process the card insertion process which is at what they say this is on appendix twenty nine from the board's decision they quote this language card services clients may need to process a p c cards card interface structure c i s to determine if and how getting in the information and receiving it is just for some clients there may be a need for an additional step in saving filling out that information getting at the more but that feature st of all is not optional it is part of the board got confused there and this never came up during the hearing where we were able to clarify for them if you look at the standard it is composed of a variety of different documents that are up brevity at slightly different times and all published of these features are part of the standard that we cited we send and receive process that is that is operational through the hardware and software piece names interfaces in that section and as we identify and we explained in our opening brief that is the they track of exactly the what the patent owner relies on to support these limitations and indeed relies on for unable to support these limitations without the it's exact same board jumps directly in its opinion if you look at appendix twenty seven report simply after recounting what happened earlier can rely on want to school me are with now and we have a very unusual situation here in that there really is no doubt the two limitations that were that we are discussing are in the prior art the search i read before from page twenty four memory these are things that were known to have the fact that everyone mits in the board doesn't dispute that want to skill me art would know that these elements were part of the p c m c standard they were within the skill of a person they were than a person or in skills knowledge in the p c card art that's not a disputed fact and having known that they're not in there that their mid to being the prior art the person would have those elements you wouldn't you wouldn't your isn't as patient because all of the elements that are part of the claim or are there between this  are and what's disclosed but another way i think that the board here mean that the panda owner here started with the prior art standard and to that standard they added additional security features those security features the noble your honor because it's simply the language of the petition which you as well as the benefit in but isn't it like we have multiple cases say that when we are looking at the boards terminations whether something was case law to support that i don't have one i don't have with no your honor i don't have i don't believe we cited the case of that particular proposition but i think even under a abuse of discretion standard if you look at what was cited in the in the in the in the petition what you see is is that we cited for example this is an appendix eight hundred and eighty two that we cited was a data transfers and operations with yes but also if you look at one thousand eight hundred and twenty five there's a section there aren't says at the bottom of the eight hundred and twenty five and the defined interaction open print i e the transfer of data between the host computer in the data storage one  nothing else in transferring data to storage then storing the data what about above where you say it's on the priority twenty four where you say the defined interaction here very clearly is exchange of data between the memory of me looking back at it now yeah i wish i'd said storage but that word wasn't the word that was being used the time was some of the petition that was a word that came out during the case that the board started using but the transfer of data to memory that is the definition of twenty five where we talk about transfer maybe we could have more are fully describe what the one hundred and thirty five patent teach is i mean i change of data silver it's between exchange and transfer and i'm sorry what is the difference between exchange and a i don't know your honor on some of these terms and i think that it's whether it's two way or not but there is one is data is being it's moving from the post to the memory you are storing data which is same disclosure in jones to two different separate distinct limitations the communicating and the performing steps well not really because the performing step we require security operation which is not the same use the communicator well it's performing the defined interaction on the exchange data that that's right i mean what i'm city is the performance that is going to be different from the communications that even if you both if you consider that the transfer of data storage satisfies the communicating step in the other horror of the performance i agree with that your honor in that they are distinct steps and that was actually the issue that the board had with kingston's mapping to claim fifty seven dollars that they were mapping the same aspect of jones to the news that what they were say was th e story in the transfer of data storage are two different things i'm sorry that transfer of data and storage are two different things perot and it which seems to me to be pretty technical we do know what the argument is that's not that's not how i understand the the institution decision but what how do you understand the petition so what we're doing here is we're trying to figure out if we don't agree with that interpretation up that the transfer of data in in theory it could involve storage but what the board found and we of course need to give deference to their factual findings the board found that kingston was improperly mapping this element to i'm sorry this same disclosure to the transfer of data to both the communicating and performing steps right there saying that the transfer of data on host to storage satisfies both of those limitations but that's not the same with things in eighty and the performing steps of the same since the performance as this additional to memory satisfies both the communicating limitation and the defined interaction but that doesn't mean that the two limitations of the same because the communicating step requires transfer data but the performing step also requires performing a security operation yes the limitations are distinct and and the performing step does have that additional requirement  factual finding and that it needs to be given deference all we have the documents here and we have some obligation to see whether their view that this was a new argument if i for technical they've had a bit of a tendency to do that then the whether you're familiar with the recent decision in chamber of commerce you know we're all going to be tweaking of arguments sometimes a little bit different language and that the well i think you know we flesh this out a bit in our patent owners response to the supplemental brief but you know it's i think the fact of the matter is the board made a call as to whether this was a new invalidity theory and i disagree with that we want to know why like and you keep on referring to the por it's finding is if we're not supposed to look tight we are supposed to look at whether it's reasonable whether it's  that so so so why is there view of the language the transfer of data between the host computer and the data storage they do that is just being transferring information not storing why is that reasonable why is it supported by substantial evidence that's the question well i think it's not necessarily the case that if transfer if data is transferred between a data storage and a host that necessarily there is storage taking place really could be reading for example if it were transferred out as one  example and would normally that would be what you need i'd have three data distorted normal means you're storing right if if the direction we're talking about is from a host of ice to a data storage if the direction is the other direction then that wouldn't be the case right now looking for what about it says between that says the transfer data total yes the host computer in the data storage so you're saying that's one way communication no no you said and store said that wasn't the question the question was whether transferring data to the memory includes story one story you know i'm i'm not sure of the board had something else in mind but the data could be done i'm not aware of i can't articulate anything to you right now as to what the data storage would do besides store the data transfer of data to from the host to memory it is normally the way you describe storage right yes i agree with that your honor and i also just wanted to to clarify that i disagree with this argument is based on an improper comparison we believe and it's factually wrong kingston is conflating the enablement standard with the anticipation standard those are different in court is subject to different legal standards and of course enable receiving and providing steps we never said that we would disagree with that as one example of the distinction between these disclosures we pointed to claim fifty five dollars the language there because that's a very clear distinction we pointed out that the specification of that mandatory language of clean fifty five dollars which requires receiving and providing make clear to a person of ordinary skill what features within p cia would need to be implemented in order to practice those steps and that's true even if those features are considered optional in the standard also argued i wanted to clarify that the board did not adopt their or this the board threat that the board did not adopt its prior rationale and automatically identify in its final written decision we disagree with that kingston i'm sorry in reality the board actually repeated the exact same discussion that it had in the institution decision about automatically identifying it never said it was persuaded by kingston that the word automatically was an important and at appendix twenty seven dollars the final written decision expressly linked jones's disclosure of automatically identifying to the lack of evidence showing that jones as memory card necessarily functions with the receiving and providing steps and so that that's all in one sentence automatically identifying winked specifically to the receiving and providing steps in the final written decision we don't agree at all that that  was not carried into the final decision as to inherent so your honor i won't belabor the point but i i agree that there's that there's an issue of the linkage between what jones expressly points to which is a different document than the one that actually contains the commands that they use to map to the receiving and providing subs but in addition to that the fact of the matter is that the board found made a factual determination that those commands were not necessarily required but picking up from the quotation that mr hoffman read the one that included the word may in it a couple of times the very next sentence your honour's says that the complete quotation suggests that the described functions that follow including later in the same paragraph the use of the get to pull data command relied upon by petitioner are not necessarily required that is a factual determination that kingston has not shown that these commands are required and therefore there cannot be inherent city obviously about whether the board considered those those admissions and i think the answer is clear the board very clearly considered those admissions at appendix fourteen the board explicitly said it considered jinx and supplemental briefing  evidence that included those admissions the final written decision cited every single one of the pieces of testimony the chinks then had identified that summarized in the red brief on page thirty four dollars and dr ryan's testimony we that they were not addressed in any substantive way and looking to the older techniques and in the brief and the board is required to provide a satisfactory explanation for its actions the deposition happened after the filing of the petition in the course of the litigation directly applies to all the questions that you are asking are of what one of skill only are what does prior art we know about the m c a about the standard and yet the board does listed in the evidence but despite it being four pages of a ten page some of the brief were given and allowing us to submit all this evidence into the record and argued at the hearing the board is completely silent in the decision about why the experts testimony about the fact that those two limitations fifty five a and b which he says were known in the art they never address why that is not in any way persuasive to questions here that i just essentially just ignore it has to be some rational basis for it and we believe that the board doesn't provide one and specs didn't provide one and it's briefing for its argument and i think you know