p and telephone system to allow the customer service representative to receive the customer information at his computer while and when the call arrives now this is a specific architecture listed in claim one of the other patent it has a server and a client and a first of ordinary skill we are viewing this would see that this is clearly a client server architecture  now so the relevant question for one of two and one of the three is does the prophets is alone or in combination teach the specific architecture of set forth in claim on this specific client server architecture architecture sure to question the fact that there is a server and personal computers receiving and sending data records as this court recently reiterated in the apple vs samsung case that  the mention of a server to a person born every skill in the art would signal a client server relationship it was citing the apple versus motorola case seventy seven that through three or four so to a person ordinary skill in the art seeing claim one they would see a client server architecture now when you looking at as i said it's a host terminal architecture and how do we know that while the prior art itself states that gore sonic clearly has many passages stating that in this eventually is a host computer communicating through screen images to terminal functioning term but why what evidence did you present that the terminal prior art reference can't be considered personal computers because it look at grossmont itself the part the proper author himself refers to these workstations converted into terminals as tru h he states that the flow information is to the terminal from the german office and he states that the invention in the invention of the host computer must interface with the terminal with a thirty t seventy or fifty to eighty terminal so in his mind and he stated explicitly this is a host of terminal architecture he does not know that he does not it shows that he does not believe that he was summary and server in the terminals in the prior art reference perform all the functions that a claim of wires and personal computers and the host performs all the functions us only on the server as only limited in the claims is required by this claim and then why is it not anticipatory why does the simple context of host vs client server matter if all of the elements of the claim are i receiving he also has a column sixteen he says they have a multi tasking operating system that's true but when you look at the lead the relevant legal question is in the system what is the nature of that component  a personal computer must perform certain structures it must have whatever and i don't think that that what any trouble seeing is how the prior art doesn't actually meet each of these limitations even though it calls itself a terminal hide any if you look at the glossary of the call coordinate if you look at forty nine sixty two and forty nine sixty three you'll see that that had discrete definitions for host computer vs server so at that time record there is no expert that says that in this case there are no documents that you can point to in this record that can establish beyond the substantial evidence standard that i've got to give deference to the board for that  would believe that a host computer is equivalent to a land server and not a term functioning terminal because it would be is the same as a personal computer in the system first time that a search still pointed out the prior art reference discloses what this terminal contains in the way of architecture and the current reference to schools what this structure is capable doing in the way of functionality sending and receiving at that point in time the terminal as the the terminal and i think you can safely say that if it was just a plane terminal not a persecutor converted a terminal it would definitely be different in the eyes of a person or any skill in the art like missing for example evidence on your of the are very different from one structure sure but i don't think the board itself has connected that structure either it hasn't provided any evidence either and they had the berger initial version of production in the burden of persuasion on that times and servers never mentions and when he talks about the invention he says the invention is the host computer that must interface with the term and you got to realize that this time historical time  there was all these post terminal legacy systems but the manufacturers had start making the hard work terminal so they needed to create something a terminal out of something so that they could keep these host terminal legacy systems architecture the system and one me point out that the relevant issue for one of the two hundred three is the claim system in the car that does the threshold thing thank you thank you burden is exactly the same as the first time around but exactly exactly and that's my question and i think that people are certainly came forward but more than enough i'm not exactly clear why the term personal computer way for the personal computer to communicate with another computer on a network which incidentally is exactly what's claimed so when it starts the issue is when it starts running that program it's certainly transformed from something other than a personal computer  silly transform fundamentally into a different device and the answer is is no the priority is clear that it clearly calls for example the i b m guys it says we use personal computers in the system they run a terminal emulation program in order to effect this communication so i think that's pretty good evidence that once you go on the i would understand that a personal computer running a program doesn't change it doesn't change its status as a personal  understand which point additional support for the rejection is required because the letter of self is an expert says no this is this means something different i mean i understand what you're saying  i see what you're saying i actually believe the testimony there was testimony given by mr gerson haney if i may be pronouncing it correctly but there was testimony from him and his testimony was this is exactly the type of architecture that we this is what we understood at the time to be involved in that type of architecture the techniques and architectures used twenty years ago it was quite a lot more and more than twenty years ago i think the relevant data was ninety three so it's more than twenty years ago and at the time we we used computers for an amazing amount of things now and our interaction with things over a network is fundamentally different than it was in one thousand nine hundred three one thousand nine hundred three was at the very beginning of the web browser so really before that time we were dialing up into a the type of terminal communication systems that were described in the prior and used in the prior art those were how computers communicate with each other at that point in time that was how how people could get access from one computer to another now i  believe the as i said if if this is something that was so special the specific architecture the client server architecture if it was so special to distinguish this piece of this patent from the pair are which what you would do at the time and i believe that's what's claimed and i think that's what the fourth a portal polluter well one of the arguments presented in this case has to do with what the proper standards that ought to have been applied to this patented the facts that need to be taken into account to reach that conclusion and so there's this sort of no harm no i think if if there's no new factual finding that the board undertakes i think they could put that i think they could do that and i actually think that they did examination and you're out i'm not i'm not exactly sure what happened in this case because of because since it's since the patent was expired at the time i'm not sure that there's any makes a difference or send it back to the exam or maybe they could have patently had every opportunity before when they were before the examiner to make the amendments necessary to convey palatability over the use of what appear to be very strong references i think there may have been problems putting in the type of limitations that they're arguing are somehow inherently present or should be inserted into the claim that maybe there may be brain description problems with making those amendments because i don't see a description for those specifications players setting aside those issues so any side issues of why they chose not to put those that language into their claims once it gets to the board in the past expire if the board says we think we disagree with the exam there after that point whatever had all of the structural elements of a personal computer yes sure that that's correct and just to be clear i think that in addition to referring to the system that you're talking about terminals it also refers to these as workstations and at the that's just a moment but absolutely what they do they they certainly do disclose that the what they call it work station they disclose it goes through those book stations have all of the hallmarks of what we would expect a personal computer including the fact that workstation has an multitasking operating system which is the o s two extended edition by i b m and they go on and so to talk to talk further about the workstations so and again when they're talking about terminals it's suppose that this reference maybe discloses more than just the type of system that's claimed because where they're talking about terminals there's an alternative and this is what mr gerson heidi said in the district court litigation he said there's more than  totally contradicts and servers never mentioned on his back and there's nothing in did where personal computers are sending or receiving any type of information as personal computers is under speed or that in the system of course a honey host computer is exchanged menu images with workstations functioning as terminals and when you take a look at the what the analysis has to be and want to one of three is you have to find the system honey he refers to as as terminals and to say that mr corsan he conceived in naval invention of claim one seems doesn't seem to be supported by any evidence and you heard them they haven't been able to point to any evidence even and his argument hasn't pointed to any evidence now on the flip side you said mr carson honeys own himself the first of these workstations as terminals and information is sent to the terminal and from the terminal and then you term in the system and that is the relevant legal question in the system what is the nature of that component and in this isto mr gerson honey clearly says his are terminals and their function is terminals and they receive and send screen images as terminal whereas in contrast clean want the personal computers are sending and receiving data records as personal computers and even if you take a look at the net than just not the person computer terminal issue there's a lan server issue and the host computer if you look at the i b m glossaries there's discrete definitions of of these things and even the i b m definition host computer is the controlling our main computer in a in a in an architecture where the definitely server says it serves other components in the system which are clients in this case the personal computer so when you take a look at the system as a whole and not just parsing individual components it's clear forty nine sixty two and forty nine sixty three which discrete definitions of host computer and server and the definition of trauma and relation and you can look at the core coordinate of forty three of six where it says the host computer communicate by by sending screen images by term i mean lation and we believe that that the term emulation turns a personal computer into a terminal in the system now going back to be alright i think there distinction about the ramsey case a distinction without a distinction the court did not make a distinction saying it was because it was sent back in fact i think that actually cuts against them the fact that they were given an additional opportunity to amend the claim and they still use