main problem it seems was corroboration of the patent owners claimed conception especially in light of the fact that at the pentagon or produced was emails that didn't even show an attachment or a particular file having been attached and that all that the board had to rely upon about what was in fact sent in those emails was the patent owner's own declaration and so it seems circular you know that known as trying to use an e mail that he printed off his computer to confirm a conception date but but the email itself doesn't actually confirm the deceptive conception data just says something is attached it doesn't identify what's attached and then the pattern over his declaration tries to tell us what was attached so it seems very what i got the decorations given under oath the inventor of that that was isabel not do not attach that's not enough under the corroboration requirement what it should be enough especially in i p r but he had never been enough in any identify what was it that's probable but he does state those that in his records when he pulled that e mail that those documents were catch but that's his own testimony it's the the problem is the e mail itself corey that he didn't and that these documents are submitted to corroborate that testimony you know but that's where that's where your problem lies because the documents don't by themselves corroborate this testimony question or some issue regarding its authenticity and had that been done in this case they could have petitions could file a motion exclude they knew about these documents relating the case there was no indication was any problem with the authenticity documents that they did exist that he did present them that he did send those e mails that they were attached he would have got to go back and get further information to authenticate those documents whether it be from some software specialists are experts who could have piped those two documents together if there was going to be an issue with it or that there were incidents of the e mails or the recipients of the e mails but there was never any doubt raised by the petitioners in this case and in that in those documents were produced also they were produced that conception because you're trying to swear behind something so you have that burden of production so it's not their burden to disprove your claim conception and whether or not you corroborate that it's actually you in this particular situation exactly but i don't get to look at all the evidence submitted if it's a question of fact i have to review a board fact finding for substantial evidence so i don't get to do some sort of de novo review and say well i would have gone a different way i have to review this for substantial evidence did the board have substantial evidence for its determination that this e mail standing alone without any evidence of what was and in fact attached  corroborate his claim of conception and i don't see how i can under my standard of review under wine that even if i would have disagreed with it in the first instance what i think if you look at you know the issue here is that you know that they're tracking that's all it says is here's the presentation i promised i'm also sending my resume and two reports i found online about the market please call if there's anything you need and this is food talks about a water meter the subject of the water meter project yes it's march twenty second it's three days before the critical date he files and that the cation twenty three days later so obviously you know common sense would say he was probably working on a patent application the only water meter that's in the record is this water meter that the ultimate impacted the file several patent applications on it the problem was the board took those the things that were missing and used them to completely discount the reference as a whole and it should have been considering everything that was in the reference this is very similar to the n f c case where this references and have anything else and it's nothing personal but it doesn't say i have invented a new water meter and i've attached pictures of it for you to look at you know i think it's going to revolutionize the industry there's nothing in this e mail other than the subject line which says water meter project about what he was sending them it's even referred to here is the presentation i promise that's all it sets so i mean i don't druckman and you assume he's making this all up then i agree with you this document doesn't show but i guess the problem is you can't use his declaration to corroborate his evidence which is supposed to corroborate his tech laroche was to corroborate his e mails the guy who got at the point is i don't know if they were going to have a problem with that i would know they were going to have a problem with the two one either they could have disputed that it never went which they do is well they're disputing they could pick anything in these emails to say it's inadequate because it doesn't  so even if they don't show up and object to your evidence and therefore cause you to put on more evidence you've got the burden of convincing the board that this corroborates your guy's testimony the other person doesn't show up you could corroborating testimony that support the inventor's testimony they fail and in our brief we talk about a little bit but those that the fact that these emails tell the story of its inventor ship these are all happening just weeks before on any of this i understand that they are then relying on the fact that they don't think we met our burden but we believe we did meet up early enough to know he's disabuse them of any other evidence that this is the only project he's working on this is the only invention this is the only disclosure material or the us them plus plus project what he had attached to this email was his is probably quite presentation which structure but his next generation flow meter and then it in  i mean the point i'm the point i'm getting at is that you're intending that there was only one you have them plus plus presentation that's simply over for when the e mail says here's the water project us plus plus presentation that had to be yet so i'm asking you what evidence do you have that that was the only presentation that's the only evidence that's in the record for that it could that doesn't mean that there isn't other evidence that that is before the court in the record this before you this is the only device he was working on you know when i go to see him there are twenty others in the in the closet someplace there's no evidence but that's again you're just speculating on things outside the record and that's the