but let's wait just a moment that that satisfies the point i was hoping you would ask me that the answer is there was and it failed every can't win on that basis and that's why the number urges meaning whether that file is a known file type or not is based solely on the descriptors of the file type and the board found that we address this point in the very last pages of our opening brief and if you'd like i could cite  opposing edwards the courts and that is that appendix you really should bring the hard copy of the brief and appendix with you  produce scripters so where is that city that they analyze wholly based on the descriptors so if you look a little bit higher up on page thirty one they're talking about or evidence regarding step one of the two of wang using only a descriptor that's what that that's what that briefing an argument is about that they're citing so if you were to pull  you don't know that for sure it's that sort of circumstantial evidence right but what is direct evidence is to go into the file and analyze it and look at its contents and then say this has taxed and it is in a dot format therefore it's a word document when it does not do that step one zero to the claimed requires that kind of analysis so one step one of the two in combination with friendship can never prevail and the board so found what the board needed to do was independent compression technique to deal with of supposed a problem of unknown data types what the evidence should very clearly and from both sides is a step want to wait in line that problem can never occur the problem of i'm recognized data types is not possible it's the but we're this last step that you referred to including one where do they get that last many other cases many things could be done in many places but the question is whether they have been done but there have been a motivation they never even put up that theory about scott wanted to frankly i never thought about that and i have no idea why someone would want to do that there's no problem it's up on  on a list of on and send it over to step one of four there's no reason to go into deeper analysis of step one of the two could someone have jam something in there it's you know anything could be done in the field of computer science by writing code but there has to be a reason to do it and why is it so i may be misremembering this i thought what i'm remembering as being at the core of the board's decision was to say there's evidence in the records that data types are proliferating so that somebody with whacking would immediately understand that at any given moment of the moment in time one is not likely to have all of the data types there is a virtue in not doing the last less compression in the set a fair description of the continent of contraband content independent that's why you have content dependent on it because there are certain efficiencies and so ordinary skilled artists and would immediately think let's figure out a way to see if there's a type that we're not getting out of the particular information in one zero eight and if we do have that way then we're going to get a benefit of using content dependent rather than content independent right so so this is a very very important point this argument about the liberating data there's a compact in our instance it's compound if it is compound it has to now first over step on the step and step one of seven has a really important requirement that again undermines their whole theory and this and this argument which is that step one of seven says take all of the individual data types in this compound file break them apart pristinely so that there is not one bit of overlapping data between the separate segmented files so they don't we have one data type per file so if you've taken the compound you've created perfect simple plots and now passed out on to stuff on the way in that process at step one zero seven their own expert admitted that when asked to know what the data type of each  is it has to determine that so if due to a proliferation of data types somehow one were able to grapple with some data type that were in the compound file it would fail out at step one zero seven the file will not make its way with them face the challenge of what do i do about this unknown type and their own expert testified and so this notion of trying to seduce the idea of proliferating data types that would style you wayne doesn't get them to the combination  divorce decision is that it does not address these points it doesn't consider these arguments these arguments were made in great detail below and then but the first argument of the day judge i heard you say that it's true that the decisions of administrative agencies need to spell out every single thing that they considered and addressed every little argument but there are numerous instances where the silence and asked which issues that are of significance is a basis for error and our briefing has been all along that this is one of those situations ok i think we're out of town a prickly when we start going back to the first story real times argument including citing the very testimony that real time says towards its position that's testimony from dr prisoner you can see that at the very bottom line of twenty two wor twenty ten and a few lines of cites twenty two and then it goes to the next page and in the second for paragraph not only does it say we are not persuaded by patent owners arguments at the beginning of the first four paragraph but in the middle of the second full paragraph it specifically calls out this r d the board says with respect to patent owners argument and i'm quoting here that wayne never fails to recognise any data types and is talking about it step one away there and then he goes on to give  twenty three and a twenty four the board lays out very clearly why it sought a motivation to combine the french reference with when to provide the fallback if you will what happens and that's what all of these references are dealing with is we would is a more general mechanism to look at whether you recognize something so for example the dot dot for the dot p d f or whatever it might be that gives you it might give you a general sense of the file format and d it hasn't been the case that all data types have been recognized not necessarily know so there so your theory is it's going up the chain exact and their theory is that one zero seven prevents it from g to step one of the way is that correct that is their theory as i understand it but the board considered exactly that argument they made this argument below presented in great detail the board probed at the oral hearing and ultimately disagreed with it and there is substantial evidence to show including from our expert dr preserve so that to the extent my colleague suggested this is somehow undisputed that our expert admitted that there would always be that they would never fails to point to a way that's simply not the case and i would point the court for example to a seventy four twenty two and seventy four twenty three and if those pages and that's any example state seventy four seventeen is another one seventy four nineteen is another one but i focus on seventy four and twenty two and their doctor for their testifies quote absolutely absolutely one of skill and we ar understand that  that there might be unknown data types and you get to the bottom of that as ramos at the change the answer absolutely yes and if you go to the next page explains one of the reasons why that is and on the next page talks about after the for ration of data types that you're on a reference to a little while ago because if you're going to build a module that it's trying to recognize data types as when doesn't step one zero eight and there's a problem ration of data types you're never going to be able to cover all data types that appear in the future and so that's what he explains there that's not his only reason if you look at other pages such as seventy four nineteen he gives a very specific example of how uses example of an h t m l file and i was trying to think of an analogy and i'm sort of came up with the notion that you can recognize some things about us if you can take out all the kids and line them up you don't necessarily recognize each of the kids i think that's kind of  getting at there and certainly when you step back to the level of review we're dealing with here this provides more than substantial evidence for the board's decision and the board went through it again on pages twenty three and twenty four and if you're trying to do content dependent compression and you don't have a known data type you could get in real trouble because it could be catastrophic if you lose one bit of data as to certain data types so in other words if you can't figure out the data type itself recognizes that there's this problem if you encounter something unknown they're talking about file format but the underlying principle is the same if it's something unknown you better use a safe question like that that provides further support and then finally the testimony of doctors or and particular paragraph eighty six of his declaration where he walks through all of this evidence and says at the end of the day a person of ordinary skill would understand that you get to step long document there is nothing that says when you get to what has now been labeled one o seven if the decomposition process doesn't this description that says it and it's rather than continues now absolutely not is that right by the way mr reith if you look just at weighing itself there's nothing that says if box one zero seven fails to recognize some portion of the overall fire of the whole process mention of step one away more is out in the in any of the sort of practice to the question and that's the whole point and on this i would i would direct you to the record low where are as for doctors eager to put in a declaration afterwards