credentials and i'm satisfied that she possesses the necessary qualifications before we move forward i'd like to just make a few comments we've all heard the saying that time flies and flies as you get older fly faster is the older you get it also goes by very quickly when you're having fun but it goes by even more quickly when you're working hard that said i think that this past year has flown by very quickly for you in the time of too short of my lark or it certainly has flown by quickly for me i know that before a stands a woman who for structure which is a requirement under section one twelve paragraph sets not or whether the disclosure reasonably conveyed to a skilled artisan that the inventor actually possessed the invention at the time of the prior application of the invention includes the structure you agree oh absolutely on and so the point is not that the structure the present in order for the written description requirement to be satisfied the question is whether the disclosure that exists in the provisionals encompassed the subsequent room description but let's say that you're correct in the board conducted they used the wrong legal link or here if the board finds that there was sufficient structure in the when you're making up a priority examination that it it really doesn't matter i mean obviously you've got to use a one twelve a in question but if you use a one post search and you find structure in disclosure in the australian provisional covers the structure that was eventually claimed in the past and then of course is written description for it if the board applied the right test and said i'm looking to see if a skilled artisan would see that this disclosure reasonably conveyed the ultimately claim structure and it said i don't think that the disclosure covers that structure then we submitted the board's lack substantial evidence for that finding that's a second mistake that the board would have made of the more fundamental problem here is that the board really was asking patents ultimate claim again we submit there simply no substantial evidence the showing provision asked about combining information by taking the to inputs adding them together and getting a registration number the most natural way to understand that that disclosure and not immediately think cymatium is one way to combine information but here's my problem with that i was afraid that's where you were going to go because i do see some merit to the notion that you can require the explicit structure from the patent because it's a wonderful inquiry what do you do when your claims actually or can fall into that explicit structure which you've agreed to it can't be anything else it could be any other kind of algorithm that a reasonable arson may have come up to do the same thing but then the language europe pointing to in the priority document doesn't confine it to that specific structure but does it in a number of ways it may encompass but doesn't helpful way to look at it is take paragraph six and assume that instead of doing means a function claiming they actually let me let me try a hypothetical because i get what you're saying but i was so little fuzzy because i don't know where all this comes in with an obvious  doing things and your means plus function is only the third way of doing things your view is that that's and off to get priority to that provisional absolutely or higher because a just think of it this all do we know that that third way of doing things is what you've invented or something that might have been and the prior art that you hadn't invented or you know that how we can know that this is because you haven't set out one to three ways of doing things you're just saying a skilled artisan would have known these are three ways of doing it we don't still don't know which one you and that sure now but again i think the question is in there could be facts and i think newton is a great example of this where maybe the technology is complicated or unpredictable and it's not really clear if the inventor knew the third way even if most people know the first second that's not those aren't the facts here here everyone agrees that when they saw that the seclusion or to combine numbers by adding data input least included summation everyone knew it dead the question is did it exclude other means now obviousness is a different point i know my friend suggested that we're conflating the written description environment with an obviousness challenge but we're not the point of suggest otherwise because again you're talking skilled artist since these are finding from the board on that what the board said and they said this repeatedly different points is it's an implicit finding i believe they said that there are multiple ways to do yes they said summation isn't the only way to the same problem of having if it's an implicit finding and all you're pointing to is that people would have known this could have been included how do we know that it was included in the provisional well it again your on our expert said that this is clear elementary rudimentary concept you're taking a you're taking credit inputs and you're combining them into a single registration number and you're saying you're adding them together that i think it's very hard to read that other than to mean what it most naturally  now we think the board was wrong about that by the way because we think that the shoulders closure and maybe i should switch to this just to make sure i get it and that the shoulder splitter cost only about concatenation and that the expert below for the petitioners i was absolutely clear word structure eases the word structure repeatedly it starts off by saying in the courts microsoft cision if there was an express disclosure of summation algorithm and it said that that embodiment of the ultimate patent wasn't found in the provisional so therefore necessarily court would conclude that that whacked adequate written description to convey to a skilled artisan at the time that the inventor had actually conceived of a summation algorithm when he talked about combining information by adding that in puts together i think under that people who are out in the public and they ensure they're not practicing the invention there where what the patent circumscribes that is not the task for written description that is not the test for deciding if the public can look at the patent and conclude this event or in fact parties here that a priority analysis must be conducted against and in light of the actual claim limitations lockwood says the claimed invention with all its claimed limitations so were starting from the starting point to claim limitations that are found in the two one six patent now the analysis that the board provided which is the analysis that i advocated in is actually the analysis that has been approved by the federal circuit in lucent technologies is a two step process as it is with every claim first claim construction and then you apply your priority analysis to the construed claims the only thing that they were did with respect to one trial six was to construe the claims so as everyone below in the other you know little does it and does the district court why then with the board go in and look for structure in the us for the provisional because the claims that were challenged there are other claims were it was not challenging the two hundred six patent for those means a function claims were priority was challenged where you ask the question would the australian provisional australian provisional documents clearly disclose or would want to skill in the art immediately discern the claim limitation here to the heart of your locks argument that essentially it's number l approach that if we have a specific claim limitation and it is in compass or falls under an umbrella of the general disclosure that that provides priority support or one twelve written descriptions understand that it actually were inherently discloses a summation algorithm specifically not it is not enough that one can look at the australian provisionals in see that among a myriad of options summation might be one of them construct does not show possession of the specific disclosure of a summation algorithm to satisfy written description requirement for a narrow claim limitation that includes explicitly a summation algorithm one of skill in the art  if we have an umbrella that says functionally i'm going to combine or add information and there is countless things that can fall under that that is not sufficient if the hypothetical you're describing is i have an umbrella disclosure and you can only include one two and three then and it's necessarily includes three which in your example was the hypothetical then i believe that would be enough but that is not the evidence in this case we do not have one two and three we have a broad disclosure that says anything that adds or combines with satisfy the australian provisions anything is summation one of those perhaps but a little we don't certain that the board can do the right analysis if you agree that that's the right now the interpret in that disclosure i understand there to be a disclosure of specifically summation now did the mourner acquire it specifically b summation yes but that's the appropriate standard if we look at lockwood again umbrella disclosures are not enough it has to be actual or inherent disclosure of the claim structure that is the proper legal test actual or inherent disclosure of the specific claim limitation that's under lockwood under power inherent disclosure of the claim limitation the claim limitation in this case and set aside one false six i believe judge you this example is appropriate if we set aside when all six but we assume a claim that on its face states requires then it's wholly appropriate for the board to ask the question of whether that claim limitation is disclosed in the australian from missional because again you have to start with the claim limitation that a specifically the right question there is no question that that is the right standard in the l and it goes on in this analysis because dr bewley s was absolutely confused about what the australian provisional actually disclose and figure to be the board noted that the board found his testimony not credible because he did not understand the technical disclosure so i hope i've answered all your questions on the legal stand if i haven't and again i understand that this can be the interface of one twelve six i just want to reemphasize it's really only a political defining the claim limitation from there you have to ask is that claim limitation actually or inherently disclosed which is precisely what the board did in this case when you get by the priority questions and financial is prior art the remainder of the the remainder of the analysis becomes one of a question of substantial evidence and the board certainly had support of that concept there was also multiple citations in support of the fact the shoulders closed the checks up and that the checksum was itself a summation algorithm that was used to generate the password of all id and shawl so the substantial evidence  as just a general concatenation but it was a two different functions there is concatenation that is the first step in generating the password of id and there is a check that is the second step in generating the password avoid so they work together and algorithm that using a checksum necessarily involves summation so if the australian provisionals had used sex as part of their disclosure that would change my analysis the use of the working cat nation not because there are many forms of concatenation that do not include some asian the point is that the specific form of concatenation that was described in schol from the perspective of one skilled in the art is summation but just using the word concatenation in general no i would not change the analysis it would be the same type of umbrella approach that you see from the word combine that was provided in the in the australian provisionals and combine just to reiterate doesn't get you to some asian it's due to the idea of combining data that fundamentally is a problem with the priority analysis true they don't speak that there's more than one way to combine information and again we think it's simply impossible to read a school as you're talking about combining the inputs by adding them pretty single registration number and that a skilled artisan wouldn't see that discloses a certain term the fact that the board watch through these arguments and lives evidence that supports abortion financial notice what does that do the legal