arguments below supporting such finding a second the board failed to recognize that the proposed combinations that it relied upon would violate principles operation of the eighth game that cash in other words would change it in a way to would that would viol cases and none of those cases are directly a political here so you have any other support for i don't i do not have other cases but what i would say is that we look at the statute and the reason we started the rhydian case is that even the peach ever recognizes that but the petition is not based on the publication that's a decision that e bay made because they had filed multiple reexamination of question in the past in which they relied on these not cash publications they were concerned we proposed that they that the patent office would read reject the petitions as being redundant the previous attempts in their examination they took a shot they said ok instead of using those publications that we failed with multiple times we'll try something new and they relied on the admitted prior  even if that's what they said the work can still look at the house or printed publications can find i don't know if i would agree but in this case the board didn't there's there's no finding that the board actually based its decision on the underlying publications and so i don't think in this particular case it's relevant because it the factual record shows they did not do it let's assume that you think there's a are in the word initiating good took on their know it's it may have been that if we are not to need to respond on that on that basis that maybe we made it i don't you know i don't really i'm not i'm not sure your answer my question i'm assuming the boards here actually did base its decision on printed publications and not the list so i mean isn't there and that if they in fact base it on those on the publication i would say that there is we were not given a fair notice that they were in fact doing it based on the publication and i think if you look at the the final written decision you not have a chance to respond to to the to the prime are and whether it showed these limitations if we were put on notice then we would have an opportunity to address those particular limited who were not aware it existed i certainly was aware that it existed i was not aware that it is that until this question is that just moments ago that anyone of that suggested that they were relying on the underline printed publication but they were relying on the system i mean you were arguing about whether the system described there discloses limitations or not great but i would say that we were arguing whether or not figured to in columns two and three of the six zero two thousand that are describing certain things meet or do not meet the requirements of the cl is there any difference between that and the printed publications there may or may be there may or may not be out of his further discussion in the other in the in the publications but the point that i guess we're making is whether or not emitted prior in a discussion of an event is not itself the event so they could have their the master of their own petition they could have if they chose to rely on the underlying publication they chose not to do it and i think given the a stoppel provisions of c d s and it is him you know it's important that we have a clear line as to what has been using what has not been used for example if we were to prevail here could they go back to the district court and say oh by the way now i'm going to rely on the u s c system now i'm going to rely on the publication that's in section that's and that's in column two because that really wasn't part of the proceedings below it's i think would inject an ambiguity into the stock equation lesage for the questions and that i would move on to accessing so accesses the first users net cash coins to verify that the coins are authentic and have not been previously used to effect that isn't good enough doesn't mean that first the board in fact didn't adopt that finding there's no statement they're adopting the argument  be better and they did not have effectively or implicitly adopt the argument because there's no reason explanation as this course court recently held a new vase of case you cannot have an effect of adoption without an explicitly split adoption or at least some sort of reasoned explanation as to why you were adopting one argument and refusing another second even if we rely on that portion it still doesn't meet the where part of the limitation that is but doesn't a dent a bike in an active data packets area associated with the first use and third if we take a look at the figure that evasive expert put together his deposition that was kind of the basis of this combination that's figured that's a figure that we could use that page twelve of the reply we can see that the theory that they actually relied upon excludes the possibility that it would meet this limitation what happens in that figure is the buyer transmits some sort of point to the broker in the group or sends it to the currency server that's what they so the board didn't find it didn't argue with and furthermore the board could not have made such a finding first the board is limited under the magnum oil case to actually adjudicating the arguments the petitioner puts forth they can't come up with their own argument and we take a look at the base petition we say that they did not address this limitation fully so the only information they could hit on this limitation is in their claim charge in the petition that's it a three five six in the record addressing the limitation by the terror moreover the bernstein reference they fail to identify how it is at the c i s in such a system would be accessing an active data packets area now that active data packets area would be associated with the first user they simply don't do wit or section i tell him three it says the currency server is trusted not to record to whom the coins are issued the currency server does not know who is exchanging coins only the network addresses the where they are coming from what in your  suggests that it was just one of the goals and it was in the principle of operation there is no other goal that is the scribe in the admitted prior anonymity is repeatedly referred to in second columns two and three which is the immediate priority and in fact if we read it  portion we just talked about that one of the one of the important aspects of it is that the currency server does not know who is getting the coins who has the coins with points of being transmitted to so i think a fair reading of this is only that a new body is a key or principal aspect of the net cash server has to take the coin from one entity or one memory and deliver it to a different memory needs to know who's coming and who's going it is that an identification of where the coin is for the first user and who the coin is going to go to for the second user that completely we're making a procedural argument with respect to the changing the theory we do think this procedural issues with really the heart of our argument is that this is diagnostic itself of hindsight in almost every obviousness case we do a thought experiment and we say hypothetically what would have happened at the time of the invention here where the usual situation w your honor as they do you may please the pores if i may all go down the list of the issues that were raised by the appellant in address that in turn of the first being the question of whether there are findings on the question of whether the admitted priority the board was very clear the board trickly admissions that were in the past and said that those admissions themselves are enough to evidence a fire power system there was an admission that the system that cash was prior art that's what it says it's a priority system is admitted it is it made it it was known to be in this country why because the patent itself admits that it was developed at the university of southern california that's where net cash law absolutely so what we what the combination is is taking those other references that disclosed middlemen brokered operations and combines it with the currency server which has been admitted to be a priority system that was known in this country we know what was known in this country it was developed the evidence of how the system worked or the admissions in the patent about how the priority and so those admissions about the operation of the system not only number one  system when known in this country those were the findings of the board and they're fully supported by what set forth in the patent was not something known as conjuring or printed publication it was known in this country we know it was developed based upon what the patent says that it was a prior system that was developed at the university of southern california it also says that it was describing pretty publications that's it that's a optional additional thing another way to meet the want to a requirements so the way that the board looked at this in the way the admissions sufficient on the question of the findings regarding access and if i can turn to that the organ that that is being made by the appellant essentially misapprehend is the combination that was proposed below and the combination that was now the board made specific findings in support of the access and requirement of their simply being overlooked by the help one funding that was specifically made was that the in the terror more of context that's one of the pieces a priority in terror more there was a specific finding that the broker there receives the electronic coins from the binary and it temporarily stores them it temporarily stores  in then the combination of terms the move or the currency server so what it's doing is it's temporarily storing them and then when it's time to swap them it goes into the memory and takes the coins out and gives them considering that are you running away from your argument about that i'm sorry rather the jurisdiction to consider the admitted priority no i don't i'm not sure on the point of the access it is simply that how you deal with ok i apologize i misunderstood your question got so so with respect to the findings or point simply is that there were findings that were made by the board that both in the context of terra mora with the admitted priority and bernstein with the better priority the brokers or intermediaries in both of those situations there were findings made that the electronic cash or the funds are stored they are then retrieved and then they are transferred swapped paid that's what the combination is and by virtue of storing and retrieving that is necessarily finding access it and a finding of accessing in a data packets area associated with the user why because you have to find those core names that are in memory you have to find the coins that are in the can't you have to find the coins they're being stored in find them you retrieve them and you give them to the currency server to swap by making all of those five days the border thoroughly found that the currency is being accessed and it is being accessed in an area that is associated with the user those are the users coins they're being held in escrow they're being on the merits of them they have they have no implications or relevance to the proceeding why because of the combinations that were involved there for the ones here the terrible reference was not at issue there and the bernstein reference was not at issue there and the combinations that are being that were presented to the board here or of new and not previously considered turning this into the early mid about the principle of operation the argument seem to be that there was with respect to the admitted prior art that in some way that the combination violated the principle of prior or with respect to infinity and what i've heard counsel say and the best i could really hear was that in some way anonymity was a goal of the net cash system and that that goal was not being addressed so let me respond to that engine two ways first of all to the extent that it is relevant at all as a prince i think he is the phrase principle of operation yes indeed and with respect to that and with respect to first let me just address straight up that the combination the combined system works in the same way and that's what the board found the way that the net cash server worked in the prior art was an entity in that case in one example of the seller gave coins to the currencies or the currency server then swap the coins and it spits system you have either terror more or bernstein providing broker functions that broker is integrated with a currency server the broker passes the point that it is retrieved from its memory and it passes those coins to the currencies or the currency server swaps those and it sends them back to the broker function so we have a broker server that's been integrated with a currency server and that is working in the exact same way as  as the net cash system the coins are swapped and given back to the scene and if they were received from in addition i submit that as the board properly found no principle of operation is in play here the ne of currency server works in the same way as combined as it did in the prior art what is that currency server is it receives coins it looks up to see whether they are valid or whether they've been spent it marks them one way or the other and th exchange is new electronic currency in place of the old currency it's doing the exact same thing whether or not and imagery is at play here as the portion of the patent that counsel read shows anonymity was at best only partially supplied by the net cash system because it did receive information about the entity that was supplying the coins to it namely network information so it's not as though it was an anonymous system that was simply one aspect or one true goal as the board found below a goal of the system finally with respect to the argument about hindsight below of the reply brief or the reply declaration rather the assignment of error was to an argument that somehow the board was using hindsight to invalidate as most important would rest it is to say that the entire premise of the argument is wrong the premise of the argument is that the information that was submitted in reply is new and it is not new the information that's allegedly new includes number one that in the combination there would be an internal what's been called internal coin swap where the currency server takes the coins from the broker and spits them back to the broker that was alleged to be new in reply but it's not and i would cite the court to appendix pages three sixty six and three sixty seven by way of example and there when the bernstein combination was being proposed that was what was being described taking the coins in from the buyer marking them spent and transferring a new set of coins to a second part of the argument is premised on the notion that that argument was first made in reply and it wasn't it was squarely in the opening petition and also in dr newman's declaration at appendix page thirteen no one in support of the petition is opening declaration re the same theory the board say at appendix page forty one that this was an elaboration that was being provided not that there was a new theory secondly the argument is being made that the reference that was being flighted that tot doing an internal point exchange and internal point swap the simon reference your even was made in the briefs by the appellant that somehow signing was first identified as providing that coin swapping function in reply and once again that's simply not true i would cite the court to appendix page twelve fifty one and that page twelve fifty one of the appendix this is dr newman's opening declaration and he said quote that simon teaches quote in indirect payments through in the  in which the middle man which is the bank in the simon reference exchanges the buyers currency for a new currency issued to the vendor based upon instructions from the buyer so it takes the buyers  that aspect of it was described in addition in the petition to the petition cited to portions of simon that teach doing that internal currency as well namely sign that it problem eight lines five to fifty examples given accessing is either the normal use you go grab it you withdraw the it from the location or you send a request you instruct the memory to send it back this is to do with the some of the principles of the six zero two patterns operation which is specifically because you want to be able to operate the system into your way the c i s has to be in charge it has to be the master of the system and therefore when you put this combination together with the brokers just passively sending on the the  coins it does not meet the requirement of access secondly even in the council's discussion here he talks about this very point as well you know the critics ever received the coins there's also some mischief going on with the term entity in this case when they talk about the prior art which is figure two of that in the success you've had it's very clear that the address the big chicken or entity or item that is sending up the coins is the one that's getting the new coin back it is analogous to me going into the seven eleven and saying to the cashier i have a twenty would you give me two tens and in return she doesn't need any identification for me she doesn't need to know any information about me that's entirely different from the modified system that they put together where basically what happens you give someone twenty dollars like someone else is going to come in his name is bob would you give him this twenty dollars for me that is entirely different and it's in there combinations they're not meeting that at all we describe in our opening brief the page forty six how the new theories are significantly different in location they had reasons to combine the references that had nothing to do with double spending their reasons would not have addressed whether or not it's in the coin before or after post around the transaction you can only send them you can send them either i see my time's