so then the so along with that with that same issue i want to point something out address something she said she seemed to say that a few points being negative that doesn't mean anything right and that produced an eight point eight improvement versus term or precision of point three four three one and that's using just terms and directing search now we look at the second result and what you'll see is terms b c and l n are being tested and the only difference between the other result is that b c it indirect relationship is added to the search that are and then the test is right and what it is the impact of adding b c by itself is negative seven point seven percent it's not that it's less effective it's actually harmful to the search it's contributing negatively to that's the exact point what you see here in this particular instance with the regression coefficients turned on when you compare direct links and up and b c and l then to using just terms and l f which is the result of three of you see the plus ten that's the third result in the section or one two three four above again you show that the impact a b c in this particular test was actually  meaning that well actually it's a slightly negative point zero one percent negative point zero one one the comparisons one of the understanding of what he said yes should i believe it's interact what he's actually saying is this he's saying based upon least test that and this is the quote and it's actually if you flip the page you'll see a series of these quotes on page thirty just flip the next page it will direct you to where to find these the first thing i want to point from this is what he says is if the other subject there's a present c c is not really needed in b c is probably not either directly or one of the subject as we're talking about is the l n subject or so he's directly stating is if you have the allen subject or you don't mean be seen and you don't need seasick and then he goes on the very next thing to say he says about this is that  that's a direct reference and direct citations in the database or are there this is not very needed or not very important and that's exactly what we're saying here in the deep this is far more explicitly said if i could get the court to tur we turn the page not really needed in b c is probably not either in other words if you created the direct link subject or just like the twenty twenty six requires you to do then you don't need to be seen c c and y because they harm the search results then  indirect relationships are useful they're entitled farms but that is absolutely incorrect because this is not a jury trial where one presumes all fact findings in favor of the petitioner necessary to support the can i can show you that there is no canalis is directed to the issues that we're talking about here in the opinion and they have failed to do so therefore essary is entitle to a reversal or at least to remain  in on this issue regardless of their substantial evidence in this record so we have no idea what this board actually thought about this substantial evidence and i want to turn to page six where the board does address indirect not teach away from the combination the fox papers but rather from the modification teachings of the fact that recent corporate electronic database never does it explain why someone would be motivated to search and beauty in direct relationships they never refer to any of these quotes they now say is cancel evidence we don't know what the board thinks about those posts or where they interpret them the way they are now legible just not part of the record and under the rule of con what conses in that situation is to not provide any explanation of why someone would search the internet massive amount of evidence we put on the indirect relationships and other information on record and that failure to explain affirmatively in their opinion when i first set up the board said that they found the fox papers to be useful they cited directly to the pages in the fox the says that said that you would want to use b c and c c to enhance results as i explained earlier there's another petition which has been ignored which is on m j o five five eight from the first record and five seven one eight for the four ninety four case which specifically says fox says co citations interact too much better though still not as well as terms when only direct co citations are considered they are better than authors and here's the critical point but still not as good as the combination of direct and indirect  saying it's still best when you use indirect as well as direct and so in fact you would be motivated to use the claim to create indirect relationships because they will in fact enhance the record is almost identical the only thing that changes the four and four versus the three five two is that in the four ninety four it's actually in even broader claim that talks specifically about the fact that all you have to do is create these relationships and use them for searches it doesn't link back up to the computer and so it's even broader and therefore even more abstract but all of the same motivations although the quotations that say using the c and c c improves can be found at fifty six ninety three in the original appendix at fifty five eighty three which encourages further investigation fifty five eighty eight saying that combination of direct and indirect is incredibly positive which would just stop fifty seven twenty eight which says so five seven to eight is the chart that you've been looking at earlier which if you look through that entire chart what it shows is the chart eight data levon at five seven to eight for the four nine for coast added at five five ninety for the three five to every time that b c and c c are added to terms they improve their results when b c is added it's improved when b c and c c are added it's improved but even more critically the best result of all is when you add in all of the terms including the indirect relationships so absolutely you would want to create indirect links in direct couplings in order to add them so that you have the best possible result and therefore if war does in fact have substantial evidence the board indicated that it found these to be useful and therefore found that fox said what it said and had all the elements and very last i'd like to point out that the reason that the board focused so specifically on whether or not you would modify the references in order to include the electronic database and focus its attention on that in terms of the teaching away was because of a question posed directly to patent owner during the oral argument the board asked patten and so you're saying and this is directly in the board's decision you're saying that the teaching away only goes to whether or not to modify the reference to include an electronic database the answer was yes the board therefore focus its attention on explaining that there was an adequate teaching to combine the references and use them with an electronic database and that is replete through the board's analysis but that doesn't negate the fact that earlier in the board's analysis the board specifically said that it found what fox was teaching to be useful citing to a page that said adding b c n c c is useful and we want to keep doing that as affirmed by the results in chapter eight the end of chapter eight says using all of these suckers including indirect relationships has a marked improvement and we want to keep looking at it and with that your honor i pass my time over to my colleagues think we're ready for you limitation which is deriving actual cluster of links from the set of candidate leaks recites what the specification itself essentially describes as a staff in the process of clustering which is say groupings similar documents together which is internal and long has been a routine technique and information retrieval and i think very significantly for this appeal the parties are in agreement in their briefing that in finding that the fox papers fail to disclose that single stat deriving actual buster links from candidates the board disregarded certain teaching it mentioned specific leave the un core to what are called the un call were and concentration tests and it said that these are a part of forming the tree which is itself a little going a little bit astray with the board did not do was consider at all that was the position it was presented by petitioners in our big petition opening declaration and then consistently there after that during the cluster splitting process what occurs is and i say cluster splitting and that maybe the not the best abbreviation because a little bit more accurately descriptive is cluster splitting and re formation of new  happens is that a cluster has a size limit this is what fox teaches he gives the example twenty documents otherwise it becomes too unwieldy to be useful when the cluster exceeds that size limit the cluster is split which is to say it's a bolished and with the system then does is it now has twenty one documents that it wants to cluster it wants to form new smaller clusters out of those twenty one documents so what we presented a complete similarity matrix which consists of again using fox's term pairwise similarity values so all that means is the system is twenty one documents that it wants to claim calls for selecting a node f all of the analysis is done with reference to that know so the fact that a particular cluster around the tree during the formation process starts growing to a point where it needs to be  it doesn't really it's not really relevant to the question of the selected no to what extent are the candidate question links being derived down to actual cluster links for that particular one and it calculates what is this document similarity to every single other document in the group so it selects the node is a document it's selecting a document and it's performing a calculation to create a confusion arises but the clustering a notice selected for analysis in the claim to be clustered with other job ads based in part of an indirect relationships that is what's taught in the in the fox system when when documents are added to the tree in the first place they are clustered but what fox teaches is that clusters need to have size limits to be useful if you have three hundred documents in a cluster it's too big to be helpful so a size of it is that say it's twenty documents when that when a cluster exceeds that it's a polish and new clusters are formed and each document is selected as a node and analysis is performed with respect to each document has to how similar is this document to every other document in the group and then the algorithm looks at what are the closest relationships what fox calls highly correlated pairs the strongest similarity values and it puts those suppressors i see my my time is up so you pared down but that's we want to introduce smaller clusters and so everybody now is you know tighter more closely linked family the original twenty no less but it just doesn't pan out the selected no therefore are not a candidate set for the selected know and so in other words it includes an analysis and those outside without any respected position to the selected oh but this problem comes far more acutely moved to the take that up at that time i think you know i one of the smaller clusters therefore they're orphans has to do with anything so to repeat the process again which is described in the fox papers and it's essentially exactly as you are described it judge  smaller clusters there are now twenty one documents that the system is analyzing that it wants to figure out how to put into clusters it proceeds in an iterative process document by document which means selecting the three kids here because you know maybe it is obvious and routine to once you have the tree to say well instead of having the tree representing the entire back i guess what i'm asking you're the petitioner so why didn't you write that one out i thought so in retrospect i should have to look at this particular issue we may have with but the board instituted on particular gro believe that that was correct certainly i think it goes without saying that if this limitation which i think in all candor i don't think anyone thought it would be much of a subject of dispute the survey the other things we've been talking about this morning  it isn't there explicitly that it is there it's clearly an obvious thing to do i mean that just to take a step back to the idea of it if you accept that using indirect relationships to calculate similarity it cetera was known which it wasn't taught what you get to in the cross appeal is that is the quote inventive idea is i'm going to have a set of candidates and to pick the actual ones i'm going to pick the strongest ones from among the candidates based on some criteria now that notion is in and of itself is such a basic way to go about selecting anything that it multiple grounds and the board selected the ones that it was going to institute on but certainly i think that that i don't think that should decide that that the outcome of this case