contrary to this court's instructions in cases like n f c the board ignored the evidence that was in front of it the board failed to consider all of the evidence to test the credibility of the inventor story and this applies both to conception and reduction to practice the board nd error of law is in failing to consider the full scope and context of the prior art in this case as this court instructed us in bosch and later cases the full scope and context of the prior art needs to be considered when doing a proper obvious s analysis and here the board applied nothing more than hindsight stripping away all the context of mop and using it as a mere dictionary innocent houses and that the arguments you raise are difficult for me because they're all nebulous and you know we have various principals the board doesn't need to address every single issue for us to be satisfied that they actually considered the record and then you got clobbered on top of that your case that they thought your presentation of some of the evidence for corroboration what did the call that an archaeological the says an an archaeological dig we're we have to dig through stuff in get an explanations so i evidence the board you general put that evidence in its brief patton no one or respond to brief it brought that evidence forth in the form of witness testimony from it explained it up and here and there were did address some of that i mean the bet boards not compelled to address every single document that you put in but the board didn't give a detailed explanation of why it was concluding what it was concluding end it did refer to portions of the evidence right and it and it didn't except in the inventor evidence was never a way we were asked the question what evidence do you have been we pointed to it and then there was no discussion of it in the final written decision ok well it's just difficult to ascertain if there were a large number so you say there's something special about this document because this was the number one thing that you were relying on yes or i think you're right that the war came in are you talking about again it's part of the board it was exhibit number two thousand and twenty four address in that document so here inventor gang exclaimed the document in the context of how he has an inventor understood it there are other documents from the general that were also cited in front of the board in the briefing that explain that he general was not using the and fifty six case that your expert testimony is a matter of law can't make up the deficiency were not mentioned but here we're what we're not speaking to expert testimony is that inventor testimony and the inventor story under the networking configurations that would include did that the virtual interface and would include the things that he had discussed previously in his decoration or part of that the virtual mac address but in in fourteen paragraph fourteen statement presumes the conclusion that's not in the discussion in the pat i apologize your are about following there's there's no mention of conclusion but you're facing it on a bunch of pretty big inferences general testimony this is the problem the document you point to us doesn't say anything about virtual mac addresses and you can't point to anything in the event or testimony other than a conclusion or a statement about our solution did but it doesn't explain how it did it in a certain amount of time or have any corroboration i think there are other documents that do corroborate  document you pointed to i assume you would have said relied on your best evidence st and not saved it for later so in this case the inventors do not have a single document that describes something in the level of detail the pattern this was a product that they were working on in the year two thousand through two thousand and one and these are specification documents that they had put together over time and to them virtually either interface was it was clear that it address because they said in other documents they were not using the internet they had to simulate they had to simulate the internet and therefore use simulated mac addresses so that evidence was in for the board those other documents were also in f r the board as more numerous others and the board did i mean actually it did site to i think exhibit two thousand and twenty four you're right it didn't go through a detailed analysis of each one of those exhibits but i'm not sure i understand or appreciate why that was necessary i mean they do have an analysis they do complain that it's hard to get through all of this and to understand the significance but they do their best to try to do that and under these circumstances given the record the size of the record in the arguments that were made i'm having a hard time is it really just on that one document that they you you think that document w so that's conception as to diligence we think the evidence here shows and the board again didn't consider the evidence including some and to make this testimony that the general from november of two thousand to january of two thousand and two just as diligent about her plea agreement the board that you have been shown conception prior to the relevant data you would not need to reach diligence if you found against us as to conception and your comment which you just made five seconds ago which is the board to consider we don't know what the board considered not yours your argument is more clearly the board did not address right that the only evidence that we have what the board considered their opinion are standard or of us whether they're substantial evidence and you're pointing d it seems to me that you're really arguing it to novo and pointing to a bunch of evidence that you think should have carried the day your friend is going to get up on the other side  here's the evidence we put forth that supports the board's decision this is not our job to really weigh the evidence you can point to a bunch of evidence in the record that you think the board didn't properly consider but we're presuming that they did it and i'll let you have  equivalent of a smoking gun that says we invented this on x date and here's our lab notes said show all of this then i think you're going to have a hard time i think we've given you what the opportunity on conception to show that document and i you know you pointed to what you think is the best document you have anything else on us and that that document is our best document at that level of detail with the understanding from other documents that the virtual mac address was being used at that point if if we don't accept your conception argument it looks like you're by entering the rest of the combination giv horrible word or so so i've talked about diligence we still have the obviousness issue and you have to go to a quarter minute will do this really quick as to obviousness the board was required to consider the full scope and context of the  board didn't do that for ma here the board you can see this in its own written decision and appendix pages three thousand three hundred and thirty four there's about a half a page discussion of ma ma was used as a dictionary here for the sole purpose of the phrase virtual mac address or to strip all the context way you can see that by looking at those appendix pages mati just a group of network devices not computer processors as ma makes clear things that are all pre assigned a single virtual mac address not two not three but city but when we get to how the board distills mob down to the claims on appendix page sixty the board says ma is it teaches a virtual mac addresses that or be assignable upon failure to fail over to a replacement my doesn't teach virtual mac addresses it teaches a virtual mac address and they claim to require multiple ma doesn't teach reassignment it teaches transfer to a mac address is already assigned to the group that the network device is a part and certain finally models and teach any generic replacement advice ma teaches a network device ma appendix page one thousand and forty to differentiate between network devices and host where host would be computer two appendix page sixty of how the board distilled ma down to that phrase other than using hindsight ok as evidence regarding the the move ability of a configuration and it noted that there was no evidence that the configurations that would be moved included a virtual mac address so i believe that the board did have in very briefly your honour's when to reiterate the point on conception that there's a single limitation in this case that's that's in dispute so a single document that we pointed to at the hearing that supported by inventor testimony as well as expert testimony the board said nothing about that of all six claims that as to a number of different limitations so not all of them were necessarily cited to the board and we're not talking about the board having to dig into the documents on it so we're talking about the excerpts that were provided to the board in the pat down a response did you file a motion for  or argument before the board i pods that's what i mean by the hearing when when the board of the hearing asked about this single limitation this was the document that we talked about well how does that help you i mean you claim that out to them specifically they were aware of it you know we presume that they consider that and rejected it as insufficient from the board's opinion when the board says there's no corroboration as to this limitation and that's the corroboration that we pointed to for the board we think that's in or they find it in sufficient