fall down is that what the board found was necessary in the claims that in other words they said there's nothing in the language of the claim express or premise for specifying a second device to take place before discontinuing set session on se here to tell you the truth what i am here to try to convince you of is that there's nothing in vance and say that supports the board's inference that there's specifying as required in the claim that takes place the with the board articulated in this is page seventeen of their decision is that the middle  fanciness a must somehow receive enough information from the second device in order to be able to distinguish that device from other potential devices this is how they got to the conclusion that there was a specifying taking place in fact there's nothing in the fence and it was a reference that would lead to that conclusion and really the board missed the point by going in that direction the sear party position was never that well the server doesn't know where to send the information they see it for the position was that really specifying in the two three three patent is akin to designation identification in a clear and distinct fashion and that that's what was missing if you look at the specification throughout the specification on and this is a peach carrying their decision in of the first full paragraph and they say that the specification discloses that the client software may be not trying to get around if you're on the board reached the same conclusion as i mentioned a few moments ago i'm not here to tell you that somehow we're arguing the sequence of events we're not we're arguing that the hundred of the appendix indicated that in fancy in cities promo there is no need for specifying because what's happening in that particular instance is the user is suspending session users done so there's no need to identify teams select from a list as happens in the game of the second device so when you have a that possibility for many current construction i would have to agree your honor that the best time to eliminate any issues are is during the prosecution i'm not arguing ordered steps the board was quite clear that order of steps at least when it comes to specifying the second device and then starting the session again on the second device that  that order is not implicated by the claim i'm not i'm not suggesting that we're arguing the sequence of events what i'm what i'm saying is that in fan centers a single reference order but because of who or what is doing the specify correct it but again so all you have is two exemplary embodiments but nothing in the claim that says it must be done so to be clear in in the patent the claim doesn't specify who does the specifying and i just mention now several times sequence is not but in the poll embodiment one that is it issued before the court now there is no such selection all that happens is the user suspends their session discussion it our point was never that the server doesn't know where to send the information at some point in time it has to know where the information is going the point was that there is no see i'm well into my rebuttal time runners let me just conclude by saying so it's what you need to tell us because at least if it's reasonably correct review those same records on the desktop and so the we're told that the physician stops a session on the p t a and them resumes so so the example that's provided is not surprising because that's the part of your audience they had in mind but with that example your honors there's no discussion of how the physician actually resumes the session and in fact the hallmarks of a very little a second actually about how this is done and really it was the figures that the board was referring to this is on page three forty four of the appendix and you recall it was the sort of succession these three figures at the top of the page the text that goes along with that in the right hand column if anything has hallmark a push session because we're told that the session history is automatically sent to the second device and that is a hallmark connection with the first two case for different reasons i would assume so i haven't actually read i haven't compared what claims are at issue with this appeal versus those next look at some so my numbers i think my numbers are right but even if my numbers challenge how is the public supposed to cope with this conflict which they are barred from challenging in the just record it  concept so where is a no obligation no mechanism whereby the office when it receives challenges against the same patent let's say different petitions can invalid as to this prior art ultimately will then to be up to the district court judge to do what i was starting to do when you first stood up which is to say certain of these claims don't matter because there's already an invalid finding from the right if you agree with the point that in this art and we have said in the context of a self contained i p r that the p t o is not allowed to create or consider arguments not raised by the right in that way it's vastly different  for a moment to the issue that is before the court in this particular case in this particular case neither the claims nor the specification of the session server in other words this specification and again the same sort of teaching is provided to come in eight from lines thirty through thirty six the specification expressly teaches that the user locking onto the second guy is capable of identifying or specifying what the second devices without anything more and so i'm i get the feeling that your hono already clear idea of where they're going on the best of the the piece that they're probably pushing the hardest or at least one of the ones that they're pushing the hardest is that that you know in anticipation you've got to have all of the limitations and if that have been the same order as in the claims and they're saying that you're that you're basically i'm not sure it's inherent supect you're saying it's logical that in fact somebody is blocking on the pole to the other you have to do it that way you have to provide a u r l address for the device and in any event we know that in fact somehow that second device is specified because that information from the first session that's sitting there on the middleware server isn't transferred to all of the devices in the hospital it's only transferred to the second device that the user logs onto but is that is defining what it's transferring itself to a reference to the user or by reference to the device the claims we don't know for sure it could be either the board found that it could be either we we do know that it does occur or their claim certainly don't require it and their specifications certainly if you look at the passages that i pointed your honors to you don't require that in fact they seem to suggest that you could do it exactly the way an that and so we're left with this case where he just wants to say here's what specifying isn't they're not willing to say discuss a situation where you identify the second device by providing a computer address and to the extent that seven in that case the court was looking at the board's construction of a limitation for transferring a copy of said software to the computer in response to a download request by the user and the board found it to means any request now there was no requirement in the claims that the user knowingly download the software or do anything other than and log on to their user name and then have a transfer software occur that's specification doesn't do it either in that situation and we have c n n very clearly know that when that user logs onto a second device or third device that information downloaded from the middleware server to the second to fight it happens it occurs i really don't think it's inherent see i think we know it happens we just don't know the details of how it happens but as she was wrapping up she indicated that with respect to fans and say we don't know the details of how this happens well that's her point benson was a when it comes to the p joe malley correctly noted that anticipation is a very technical issue and requires that it's a single reference that describes each and every limitation set forth in the claim in the order that they're se i'll just remind you that even claims that were directed to a color photocopier have been found not to have been anticipated by prior references to teach color printer that's the train tech the solution to fifty nine unfed third twelve mine too your honors in this case that there is no identity that would be required for from the middle where server this is spelt in the reference pages of the appendix three ninety three and three ninety or where it's indicated that unlike the push mode in the needed the but word nor the director has pointed to any tax in france and say that would suggest the opposite and instead they've merely speculated about how a second device  retrieve a session state with respect to the portions of the specification that my colleague pointed out if anything i think this makes your point the passage in column for that was reference