application of the rule of reason test and the preponderance of the evidence standard applying the correct law the evidence shows an invention reduced the practice before the grass priority date prize and asked the court to reverse the board's decision per radiographs and those documents did not require further cooperation to demonstrate the contents of the physical evidence itself namely that counsel counsel it isn't it true i'm sorry this is just a mouth i mean it's it's true of course that documents don't necessarily need for the crapper ation but that's where their documents on their face disclose a level of reliability i mean we're talking about documents that  of matters either were undated or there are photographs that were taken during the course or in preparation for the litigation i mean it's not a question of the board just saying that that every document needed to be by a rd party they're just saying there's nothing on the face of the documents that gives them comfort that the documents say what inventors claim they say and thank you judge your mail and that's where the problem is the documents themselves in fact the key inventive documents here which are the invention disclosure record which is exhibit one thousand and five and every page was dated your honor as well as each and every page having assigned not required but nd of all they were witnessed by two people at that time in january th one thousand nine hundred and four ms marcia albright she was the director of engineering as well as bruce smith two years later those two people did end up becoming named inventors long after the writing or signature in the or narry course of business at that time were not the words they were not non adventurous they were not not adventures later but at that time they believed they were not inventors when they signed the document just like a declaration your honor you take the declaration on the date it was signed not years later and those documents show on their face the entire invention it should and that's the point in and needed no corroboration that is the opposite of what our court actually held in that case that was it was a remand but the quit the court stated in the brown case that dr reese's notebooks and those audio radiographs themselves do not need further cooperation that you can look at those documents and identify the fact that an f t ass experiment took place that was the remount portion of it but it expressively says those documents can't be because they were witnessed by the inventor himself to corroborate for example the dates of invention yes but those were his personal notebooks the next question becomes is there something and of independent nature the independent nature is needed no further corroboration that's right the remount was based on the fact that the board there did not look at dr reese's notebooks an audio radiograph themselves despite the fact that dr reef the inventor created them that was the remount go back look at the four corners of those that in inventors on witness documentation does not corroborate and inventors testimony about inventive fact that is the holding in the case that is the holding but your honor that the documents here are different than that document that is a personal notebook from that person writes inventor notebooks are different things corporate records where on a space you can see in dish and this is footnote three out of the price case footnote three what i'm saying is this your honor that the corroboration requirements requires evidence of an independent nature the documents themselves can serve that even if it's to if it's created by the inventor so that's what i'm saying so if you look at the documents you look at the four corners of these documents doesn't look like this was created at that time with the dates there so the invention disclosure records the cad drawings in the summer june july august of one thousand nine hundred and four all dated they all identify who created them and they're all back by meditating and they're all supported by independent evidence was introduced in this case absolutely those are all the exhibits your honor and is there some expert doesn't explicitly identify that the method data from a scientific standpoint you know supports the date but the meditative shows that the dates of last modified are shown in those documents which were either on the date of the document itself or a day or two after friend or a subordinate at his employments that's better evidence of corroboration then computer generated mehta data for that same document or for a document that's created is characterized as part of an organized research program like we have here back in the early ninety's twenty seven years ago so indeed the law doesn't impose some impossible standard of independence on crop or even governance and it doesn't require nine inventor witness to sign or or to testify about about it in fact there's a lot of problems with non inventor witnesses testifying similar to inventor witnesses testimony testifying in and of itself elevate that type of evidence over for example computer and you enter goes no independent testimony and when i say independent i mean none inventor testimony as to what these purported files correspond to the only testimony you introduced was the inventor himself says oh tell you what each of these files are he got a bunch of random file names and then you've got date modified have no independent evidence to show what those files are that correct that's true but price itself that case which is under clearance thing goes back to us having just believe your inventor and a bunch of documents which he says believe me when i tell you what they are no that's not accurate  here the document itself the document speaks for itself the document shows a filename it corresponds back to the document those are actual evidence and by the finish my thought here and i'll reserve the rest of my time for a bottle th that's federal government's one thousand and one that exist for example there that meditative document shown as an original it's as if we walked in with a computer show them out of date on a floppy disk and then presented it it is not i questioning and is this court applied apatow there is an initial threshold there is a bright line rule and the requirement for independent evidence is necessary even with the rule of reason as we know from apatow or brown vs barbara medicare the rule of reason did not dispense with this requirement for independence independent evidence remains the key to the and so then the question becomes did horizon in this case attempt to establish any of the invented facts solely based upon the documents and they did not  i don't think you answered judge america question right documents don't need to be independently corroborate depends what they're being offered for is that inventors lab notebook is being offered to prove the day he conceived of something because it happened to have a pen written date on it  is that satisfy the burden of proof for the date of conception for example you know what judge moore you bring up a great point i think that's exactly the right distinction which is the case law says you can look at a document and understand it substantively for what it shows but exactly to your question judge moore if if you're using that document to establish that say there's a handwritten date on it or it's or there's a name on it if you're trying to use that document alone to establish the date for example or that that person did what they purported to have done or that they did it on the date that's on the documents of the document alone under those circumstances is going to require independent corroboration because just like you necessarily take a copyright date on a prior art document you need something in addition to help prove that that copyright date is the date that it was established so i think that is the key distinction and that's exactly what the testimony in this case is attempting to do not only is it attempting to show that those documents are what they are that they're authenticated but also a seven if i if i may pick up where you left off on this metta data this isn't that a data in the in the sense of computer files and information that's coming out of the computer this is soley a screenshot and so we don't know where the screenshot came from we don't know that that the file names listed in the screenshot we don't know what they are we don't know if they're associated with i'm sorry you  know you're making a valuable valuable point i didn't need to cut you off but i guess my question is this it would be different had they actually turned over real men which allowed you to click on each of those files and see what they were and then look at the date upon which they were last modified that's precisely right that's right judge moore if they would have turned over the actual computer files they could have done this a couple of different ways as well if they would offered let's say they had an independent id technician who puts in an affidavit and tells us what these file names are how they're kept where they're kept tells us something about what that date modified means  and whether it truly means that those documents haven't changed for time that's the type of independent evidence that this court case really does scream for and that was absent in this case that was that was frankly absent in apatow or cole craft now in both of those cases the problem was this catch twenty two of corroboration where the documents alone are being offered to corroborate inventer testimony but in turn you need the inventor testimony to help build up those documents to show those documents are what they are and so somewhere in that catch twenty two you need that baseline level of independent corroboration in order to establish a baseline level of sufficient corroboration a caveat maybe it's just a choice of words but but the real question about documents is is are you able to prove that they that either they say what they say or purport to say or are you able to prove that that they disclose sufficiently the information that would be needed to corroborate the inventor testimony so it's really the credibility of the documents that we're looking for isn't it yes i mean that's exactly right and let me let me point to for circus we don't know anything about the box there's no indications there's no labels on it so what we need with that particular photograph and frankly this is very very similar to apatow in kolkata you need the inventor testimony and you've got inventors of wagner who says who talks about what that box is who talks about the hardware components on the box makes a mention and says we tested this and that it worked there's so much here that is fundamentally reliant soley on the inventor testimony the document that the picture in and of itself by the way proves proves nothing and by the way we know this picture was taken by the adventure for purposes of this soley inventor testimony that does go really hand in glove with the inventor generated documents and the two of them going together creates this catch twenty two dollars the only thing below that horizon ever pointed to and they do is they point to it again today in the argument is exhibit two thousand and five that's the invention disclosure statements and counsel was asked about the signatures on that fact  in which they swore under oath they said as of that date as of january one thousand nine hundred and three we believe we as inventors had invented this invention so this argument that they only believed years later that well well exactly they're saying today they're inventors of the challenge claim specifically that are issue in this case horizons offering this evidence to try to establish that they had invented the specific cla this case before the prior art here and so if inventors albright smith are now saying yes we were inventors of these claims because we had invented them as of january exactly it so it was january ninety four they said we were inventors as of that date there's no doubt that they were co inventors when they signed that back so you end up with the the cross corroboration problem that this court is addressed multiple times it's not good enough for a co inventor to try to offer corroboration of another co inventor that's not independent evidence and so the failure for independent evidence in and of itself is sufficient to sustain the board's decision below there's multiple other reasons that this court can sustain the board's decision below including that there is no showing and really no argument on appeal that the board's factual findings under the rule of reason even putting aside independent evidence they're there anything but supported by substantial evidence and horizon and its briefing argues that the board excluded evidence ignored evidence or required individual documents to show all the inventive facts in and of themselves none of those things actually occurred the rule of reason was correctly applied the board was quite clear a sixty four for example six seventy one they looked at the totality of the evidence they have page after page going through each document and all the testimony associated with it and correctly found fundamental glaring gaps in the proof and again this is aside from the board went on to look at the evidence itself and what it shows and horizon has an argue has an appeal those issues we think those in and of themselves are sufficient to affirm and if there are no my correct expressly found that the invention disclosure itself didn't seem to include all the elements in limitations of a challenge claims you're exactly right  looked at the invention disclosure statement it doesn't satisfy each and every claim limitation on a claim by claim basis in it and if you look at for example a thirty three dollars a sixty three dollars it says that document is missing the key functional limitations which even by vendors of adi's own statements in his invention disclosure state that the software in the functionality and how the microcontroller operated with he did the invention and two thousand and five you know of itself is missing provided in response what did kurt do nothing curt took one deposition of the need to not take the depositions of the other three witnesses particularly smith and co carney who developed those cad drawings and the meditative that goes with it it went  rebutted testimony attorney argument is not rebuttal evidence to that number two is with respect to claims sixty four and seventy that goes to that st invention disclosure of january one thousand nine hundred and four and then the remaining claims one and concha the very top was provided to a spa the director of engineering marcia all right she reviewed the st pages she sends that off to her patent attorney that entire document is the invention disclosure form for claims sixty four and seventy the argument that the board raised regarding that the functional limitations are explicitly in those documents is not the law as long as opposed can understand those circuit diagrams and understand the functions of  opposing would not understand the functionality of those circuits there expert what i had a field day no such evidence again it's mere attorney argument finally the invention birth respected claims one in sixty five through seventy ad the display  on a space that shows the concho there nor normal ordinary course documents that were created these are personal and better ship documents i don't know i don't know i think this case of a firm of prefab policy a new law that would overturn literally decades of law here and it's this is the st time when you look at like how do you when you look at dupont and similar cases along those lines what you have are situations where there are strong organized research programs  in your reply and there's no evidence anywhere in this appendix to the contrary all you introduced me appendix seven which you have complete control is a screenshot and that's incorrect that's a false statement by opposing counsel response to it one moment or honor is where we identify the federal government's one thousand and one day that was our entire point that if you take us if you take a screenshot of the of the for example of a screenshot of a computer monitor that's the equivalent of you're just you're defending the printouts as authenticated you're claiming the printouts are good enough that's right what we did was we provided both we provided the underlying a yes and what we presented to the people are the screenshots themselves which again under federal is one thousand and one is more than sufficient same with district court i can walk in with screenshots showing the underlying mehta data and at a sufficient fact that the cold craft case what happened  express my extraordinary frustration i believe that throughout your briefs you have exceeded the bounds of zealous advocacy and i believe you just did the same an oral argument you just told me in oral argument and you can go back and listen to the recording that you did in fact disclose them out of data when i told you that in the response brief they said you didn't you said we told you we did your honor i asked you where you said i don't know but we did i found where by finding you said we did it where we talked about that a rule of evidence one thousand and one so i found the only place near briefer you talk about that you can point me to it but i found it and in that location it never said that you did in fact disclose and that the data i feel like exceeded what i find to be permissible in terms of your representations to this court and i would urge you in the future to be much more careful i have no interest in listening to you any further because i don't trust what you're saying i'm sorry about that your honor but that's that's the record evidence we provided we provided that in discovery here and that's the truth as for the corroborating evidence here of an independent nature again we presented four hundred and fifty nine pages contemporary  contemporaneous business record documents we provided computer generated matta data again the file the federal as of evidence there judge more specifically it says there that you can provide screenshots in court or in p tab and that will