questions on any other issues that were raised in the briefing your honour's even on substantial evidence review this court has been quick to reverse in situations where it's found that no reasonable mind could could take the evidence supplied to argue anticipation and come to that conclusion and hear no reasonable mind could a prior art reference does not disclose the claim or the claim limitation in this case when the proponents expert concedes and i quote it's not specified in the prior art and that's that quote is taken from a one to two nine which is the element as to which that is the element of the emitter element with different phrasings but it's an emitter that must transmit credit card related information so the disclosure that needed to be in the prior art to satisf limitation was the twilight's transmission of credit card related information so your honor as i took that deposition and i directed the expert to exactly where he had stated in his declaration was the age of the joint and if it were that yes that would occur as sure that was a one to two nine just under i think the middle of the page you'll see a stand alone answer it is not work it's not specified so that was the wireless credit card account information transmission limitation of over five and two of seven and what was astonishing and we called it that in our in our blue brief is that we had raised this in our briefing before the patent trial and appeal board the p tab the final written decision never a knowledge of the existence of this testimony that just blows right by it and we contend that the  r r f option yes no i'm reading from a thirty seven and just as an aside two of the final two of the three final written decisions you're virtually identical so that you'll find this quote in another of the decisions but quote the truth is i r r f option is provided it's right smack in the middle of the page correct as an alternative means of communication of the information required to be communicated by the new e t card to the c r u that's that's analysis but in reality as we briefed in a squares expert admitted this level of detail just isn't present in the reference the record supports that something else is doing something similar it's the pin contact the support that it's in contacts that do this it would be in the patrol to document itself at column sixteen lines thirty five through forty one and lest there be any doubt this is the section of the pat it starts talking about what's happening in a transaction it talks about the mechanical and contacts so there's there's no wireless transmission of that kind of information and that would have been required for sound your honour's where for a lot of development in a field to go on a lot of more or less simultaneous patents to be cropping up at about the same time there probably know there were interferences they were there no not there's no record of that and i'm not aware of that judge  moving on to the second gap and patro to that that it never has the card microcontroller that you e g card microcontroller actually perform the memory writing of credit card related information and again the clear disclosure is that something else does it there's there's the what we call the c i you that's an outside device that mechanically couples of the pin contacts and then i'm using a  and it's near the bottom of the paragraph that starts at wind twelve so what i'm going to direct your honour's attention to is line twenty four right then contacts thirty eight to connect to the memory says touch memories with direct contact to connect to the cia you direct contact so and there's actually no dispute among the parties that that is a disclosure of an embodiment that does this kind of bypass that i mention d at page thirty four no twelve in the read brief even square acknowledges that there is a disclosure of what i'm striving it's the c i you drops the credit card information into the memory bypassing the microcontroller so job if that were disclosed we would see the panel citing to a place in detroit which says oh by the way the micro controller drops credit card related information into the memory but it just never says that we characterize it in our blue prefer as as a so called thin device it's in the sense that this is our verbiage at the appellate court level but it's thin in the sense that it doesn't have the full range of functionality that for example of mr cooper's car did so and now moving on in the prior art we're talking about would have to disclose the display of credit card related information but here your honour's i direct your attention to a eleven fifty five to fifty six this is where squares reasonable mind can depend if the proponents expert says it's not there and we show in our brief that the p tab did make an effort to get around this testimony but what they did is they built what i'm going to include those two sentences within the scope of his admission but the record just did not support that and we demonstrate that pages twenty one to twenty three of our reply brief squares expert made his admission about the entirety of the relevant  and all the evidence all the issues that mr cooper raises today are issues that take issue with the board's findings fact and of course those reviewed for substantial evidence and the one thing that this court looks at is whether any reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion that the board d both the board read it differently and had a right as a finding of fact to read that the evidence in a different way and also the board independently relied on the evidence from the patents themselves and i'll show that with respect to each of these limitations which is itself substantial evidence independent of what the expert combination of column sixteen and the disclosures in column and nine that lead to the transmission the wireless transmission of the count data and what the board found was that there are you know either it's an either or scenario there are two  again or infrared or radio frequency based wireless transmit and receive units that's the wireless and body and which of these alternative communication paths the unity card use is it depends on the particular environment whether it's wi and i'm also reading from a thirteen and as mr greenspan pointed out there are nearly identical final written decisions here for the two so i'm quoting from the double of five final written decision and this is the language that the board specifically relied upon to support its conclusion that there is wireless communication of account information now and again i was just about to quote was it says depending upon the system we use to buy the  t card and that's again nine fifty nine to sixty three so what the board found is that these are alternative means for providing information it's an either or situation according to the board so when it when it's a touch memory device it communicates the account information via the pin contacts that's correct and that's what and that's what's disclosed but when it's a wireless embodiments it transmits wirelessly through the infrared or radio frequency which is item thirty nine a figure three the mixing things up that i'm hoping not so long as your greens i think called our attention to your dreyfus statement at twelve twenty nine which is about column right although it's not a joint appendix though if you read on in the testimony from twelve twenty nine to twelve thirty six mr dreyfus explains his his combination of columns nine and sixteen it's just that part just isn't it and we're happy to provide that we just didn't put that in the joint appendix but independently also relied on if you look at a thirteen where the board is talking about its conclusion it's relying on those columns and column nine disclosures that i just quoted and to the board to this court forgive me the board mr greenspan also said that the board did not consider mr drives his testimony at all and that's just not correct what the board did is consider the argument that was based on mr drives testimony it cited in particular a three and a half page portion of the pa response most of those three and a half pages are block wrote of mr dreyfus testimony that that issue here so the board referred to those pages referred to the argument this is that eight ten thirty nine to ten forty  is the relevant the relevant portion of the patent owner response that the board referred to and as the court can see mr drives testimony is the vast majority of that so the board specifically referring to those pages and addressing that argument is in fact addressing mr graps as testimony and whether it's in any way inconsistent with his declaration so moving to the control circuit limitation which is the second issue from the double of five and the two a seven patent so here what mr cooper argues is that the only thing that performs the memory storage function from the ricci card is this external device called the communication interface unit the c i you but the board said the board concluded to the patro to disclose is that the information stored transmitted or received by the yuichi card may include and i have a lipsius here account information for each service institution so stored transmitted or received by there are pages thirty two and thirty three of the read brief where each one of those that serves at the board relied on to find substantial evidence that it's the yuichi card that's doing the writing to memory here and the board relied on something more the board a microcontroller i dida based on it and software and the border vitam the fact that it has software on it and the software has database management and memory management functions and relying on squares  mr dreyfus and also rely on disclosures within patro data the board concluded that is the microcontroller of the u a t that performs this database in memory management which includes not just reading but writing to memory and had to have storage that is disclosed so store just disclosed as being performed by the ricci car generally and also being done by the microcontroller based on the software it was in the fact that the microcontroller runs the software that's understood and the software and that's that page is a it's a fifteen to sixteen which the board adopted on a seventeen and finally the board relied on one more thing and that was that there is memory within the microcontroller block that's memory thirty three remember the answer maybe it was going to what is the b plus box in that thing if you can figure three after the l requires your honour's will recall a display that's configured to display some amount of credit card information and the board here relied on a forty sixty four so forty sixty four the appendix column fourteen and the disclosure that it identified as to the disclosure add one bracketed one to distinguish it from a later disclosure which is the disclosure of bracketed to and they're introduced by different language one of them is this aspect and one of them and one aspect of refers to a subset a telephone call aspect what the board found is that the language in that disclosure the unique control routines and display configurations and i'm paraphrasing here but at this is fourteen a thirty six to forty one those display configurations in conjunction with credit card numbers ensure that the information stored in that and the device the key can this device is readily available and may be quickly conveniently access used and from that the board concluded as a matter of fact that this disclosure reflects the action of displaying credit card account information and i'm reading there from a sixty three and this finding board based its finding on the direct disclosure intro to excuse me and kick in as i said to try to make it this and that itself is substantial evidence now when mr cooper argues is that well what your expert says something different in his deposition but that's not correct the board look specifically at that issue and look at what the expert testified and what happened was that the key testimony on this one forty six forty two of the appendix the top of that page what mr greenspan did is direct the expert to the disclosure of that to the one aspect information read it aloud into the record and then asked a series of questions about that disclosure to the expert answer those questions and the board looked at that testimony and said in context the expert was answering about the disclosure of two so at worst for square this is ambiguous testimony i don't think it's ambiguous square wasn't confused the border wasn't fused and the one confused here is mr greenspan and he could have clarified this he could have asked the expert a repudiation your prior testimony are you what do you make of the disclosure of one are you saying you know what he said another didn't take the position i do your honor yes but you know this is the risk of rely on an ambiguous that mr cooper makes a couple of arguments in a reply brief they didn't mention here today about want to respond to this one of them is that we should read out of existence the words display configuration because the words control routines also  but control routines and display configurations are explicitly linked in the kicking this disclosure and i just prefer the core to column seven lines twenty seven and twenty nine which says that that thumb will control the configuration display according to control routines and column two lines thirty or thirty two that says control routines operate in conjunction with the display so there's no separate ability between the control routines and the display configurations they're part and parcel of one another then finally mr cooper argues that that the board couldn't have interpreted the disclosure of one any differently than the soldier two because the disclosure today is just a straight elaboration of the disclosure one that's not correct starting with the last thing first let me read to your honor's the testimony showing why it was a tunnel vision q and a examination with with mr dreyfus i did direct him to the exact text starting on wind forty one of the reference about the things that are displayed in keeping us and then moving on i ask there's no other aspect disclosed besides that that's really the only aspect of this are you reading from a forty six forty two aspect disclosed besides that that's really the only aspect this described right answer that's the example he uses to teach yes there is no other just closer than that of what is shown on the display for the cellular telephone interface functionality answer in the patent body that is what is explained yes that was not the tunnel vision question and answer that was why i asked him for everything give me all you got and when he when we got to the to the fo do better it is a pattern and what's interesting to note is this just demonstrates that you can't really trust these figures to be representative of what how the device is built because if you look at b plus it has an unconnected arrow pointing in the direction of the rest of the circuitry and i think it just goes without saying that if it's a battery that has to be in reality it's going to be connected so then the figure is really very stylised as we explain in our own brief about about the very same type of transmission and something else quote by the u we t card by the unity card as we explained in our briefing there are really two senses of store the word store going on here the precise sense that needs to be shown in the reference to can store a particular kind of information even if it's something external to the card that's done the writing slash storage of that information to the memory so when you when you actually look at all of the places in the reference describing issue that mr angelus started with i raised my eyebrows i heard i heard when he started his talk he said that what the board did is create a combination of columns sixteen and c seven that led to the conclusion that there's you know something from column a and some some from column b and you combine them and there you have the claim limitation we know from the net money in case and cases like that that  you can't take the independent disclosures of a reference and combine them to come up with an anticipation theory if there's an issue to be raised there on their behalf it's going to be one of obviousness if you're going to go to combinations and finally again back to the tunnel visioned deposition style issue that mr angelus brought out let me direct your honor's attention to when i asked mr dreyfus questions  and this is this is from a range twelve twenty eight to a twelve thirty i can't pinpoint exactly where in that but here's my question now i'm going to ask you to confirm that those are the only places where radio frequency or infrared are answer was i believe so that is the demonstration that in neither case were these tunnelvision human a's that allowed them to the type of judicial x allowances that we see in the