good afternoon everyone the panel has before a total of six cases three of them are being submitted but out of world parliament today on the briefs namely appeal number zero six dash thirty two eighty three smart versus merit system protection board the peel number zero six that fifteen thirty one international custom products versus united states and appeal number zero six thirty four eleven tobruk versus department of veterans affairs on the three case argument list will scott if all of the elements of a d r resolution of contractor wills are like disputes were already known in the settlement part of his assuming there is such a  thing what more did the inventor or purported inventor do here other than to put on a computer well known techniques in verbiage that had been done for a great deal of time in a non computerized way perfectly entitled to go to court in the probate court perhaps and contest the will that i left because under this system the the requirements of the system are that he will is wrecked recommended clause but why does that bind judge tycho had nothing to do with the clause being put in who didn't know the clause was put in who never agreed to be bound by such a clause who never forfeited his right to go to which requires the recipient for potential beneficiaries under the will to claim under a system that the well itself require or before quote from any time of this since the patent you say doesn't limit itself to computerized internet related systems if i were to operate a system such as mr kaminski thomas keyes pardon me  the extent that you put some boilerplate language in saying this document is mandated for arbitration i mean what's inventive about that lawyers have been putting clauses like that in documents for decades if not centuries but it was involved is ok it would change my example i maintain the system on paper in my office including a roll of pre selected arbiters who are going to decide disputes and i advertise that if anybody that system to be operated through the system itself is not and along with that officer elsewhere is demonstrated not to be what about the novelty of claims thirty two to fifty nine that involve contract unlike documents bilateral documents where parties did specifically agreed to arbitration etc well that's a new and inventive about that why isn't that old old old art again i think  we should point out with the very strong that we've made the case for sir consideration both points how can you say that when you didn't separately argue why claim two for example would be  if claims one were found non credible the only way you can preserve it by just saying you want to preserve it you have to actually demonstrate claim by claim by claim with the different scopes are that would allow one to be patentable even if the other is not all the claims stand and fall together because of the failure to distinguish them and then as i recall the board selected as the single representative claim of the whole lot of fifty nine claims thirty two which is a in fact they only considered thirty two representative of all fifteen off that's what they said but in foot they said what they did does not appear separately they separately rejected claims won and use ruled in existence at that time so you have to say that the claims do not stand altogether which we d some sort of implication when an examiner and then there after the board does a one of three analysis that the examiner and later the board have satisfied themselves that the threshold requirement of one on one has been before it leaves the building but in this case it's left the building it's here and you seem to be saying if you don't like the one of the three send it back and let us do want to one and i'm just challenging whether that's fair because you had the chance to if we consider that this is not patentable subject matter can we affirm on an alternative ground i think when when i think about a question like that i think this cour we've we've done it there are there are cases in our court that a file that aspect of gender not necessarily in the p t o context but with respect to other agencies on a different subject i don't read the board decision as refusing to consider the twenty one and seventeen on the ground that they weren't arguing what i read in the board decision and think technically they didn't comply with our rules but we're going to go on though it believes that perhaps that way that they went ahead and performed now will it not take them what's your response to mr scott that as to the first thirty two claims applying to unilateral documents like recall are all computerized systems this is scott's point is look more fundamental than that he says it doesn't have to be can computerized not claims computerized it's just claimed as a method or t v certain things by certain steps so through a walker arbitration process not an illegal now mr scott says the state law most everywhere expressively from its testator's to require arbitration i don't have any knowledge of that one way or the other but let's let's assume that that's correct and seem to me that you then have a big problem because the you're saying the prior art to walk again or combination is so broad that would include something that under my hypothetical is illegal i thought it executing it only can work if the background law allows it looks to me like your best defense here would have been taking mr scott's point that this is allowed by state law and saying what makes this is the one that choosing the arbitrator and that will avoid any fight later on down the road when in fact there is a dispute five between various parties over who should be how does that new there must be all sorts of agreements where arbitration clauses are permissible where the arbitration clause says well look if you in the dyke have a fight over this matter you have to arbitrate and mr scott will be your arbitrator because he's been picked up front and that's righted and he's written right into the clause how can it be new we have not tried the i don't know you said that's where the novelty resided now you're saying it's not new when it comes to we'll i'm sorry when it comes to will bilateral relationships right engender luggage or talks about other things and not just it has an electronic intermediary but it's not so dedicated to dealing with by having a range but but invention if it is designed to to lock the courthouse door and force the will challenge or to go through the system and not the courts it doesn't seem to be anywhere hinted at  any view that arises out of out of the document that's registered with that if they're combinable if they're going on that that and likewise whether a contractor will or any other legal whatever the evidence what is the evidence and what are the findings to support combined ability of dinner and walker and perry and the arbitration fee schedule look for references that are mainly discussed of just dealing with different that that makes every patent or other prior art combinable with anything else that talks about arbitration they're all combine them automatically because they share in common some reference to the word arbitration well we have more than that here because the two systems the walker and gander overlap and are related and as we explain our rectory they're both electronic systems does a lot of those two patents like the former is prior art no there's not some kind of express objection is that it's never been a requirement for law to have that level i'm just trying to test your ideas if they're so overlapping that anybody who knew about one would know about the other and would see that they are over ten page opinion of the board here sometimes the board opinion expressly incorporated by reference the examiners answer but that doesn't appear to be done you're right it didn't use that language but nonetheless examiners answer i think still i'm talking about what we are allowed to look at as the justification for the obviousness conclusion here and since the answers to the examiners answer was not incorporate reference and may be part of the opinion as if it were fully set forth here i'm assuming and i'm asking if you agree that we're limited to these ten or twelve percent of the board of the three judge board decision right and i think the fact that the content and nature and extent and scope and specificity and so forth of this opinion meet the thrust of in rank finally and yes absolutely because as i recall sangley we  talks about why these references are combined so looks to me like it's a little thin on that dimension and i'm wondering if it does comply with the with the implication of in r if we agree then then you know that that's a problem suppose we disagree is it is it not within our power in a circumstance where we can the fly whether the poor workers right all we can be sure of is that we can know whether the board was right without a fuller opinion and more careful fact finding but what if that's our conclusion are we not authorised to send it back for at least further fact finding further reasoning a better  to address and therefore even if they're in different fields different classifications very different settings they're combinable because somebody focused on that problem would know to look at the what they don't postulate the problem