basic response to that i think it has the only potentially even the only allegedly the consequence of that is the inclusion of hashing or not and the government doesn't even defend actual encrypted and that's reversible by by decryption what's wrong with that argument the problem with that is that's not what the examiner found and that's not what the board found above the examiner and the board relied on wave research defensible hashing is not a person it's not how it's used in the patent it's not how the specification specification claims that to have an encrypted object you must be able to decrypt it for subsequent use yeah expert declarations that were submitted confirms research to indicate the appropriate christian scheme for the assets and wave restrictions to secure sensitive data see answer twenty four to twenty six i guess what i'm wondering is why isn't this a clear finding by the board adopting a finding about the examiner that pond is teaching this claim limitation obviously would need to be adjusted for an x m l tag but nevertheless it that pond is the focus of a clean imitation that is ponders teaching to fix that to the beginning of a file and and then use it to encrypt and decrypt that file to encrypt the file but not to use a tag based approach so what pond would do is is just encr specific format that uses tags of the object level so you could have a big file and i could have a thousand objects in it and i could say you'll have access to three of the objects and i'm going to print that in the tag and i'm going to specifically put the ac used in that and then i'm going to use that tag to set an encrypted level for that object and then i could give you permission to three different objects and i could give you permission to five objects or i could give you permission to all the objects using the information  described as separate things so that's right though they said the label could give you access to the entire file but that's it it doesn't says it doesn't i mean i'm reading the last line of the abstract the label is permanently prefixed to the protected file but is encrypted and decrypt and so as long as that is continuing to be used as the basis for the rejection of the examiner had said from the beginning we're doing we're for the tags and we're doing paani already and that would've been a different argument you would have had you know it had different arguments and results maybe at the exam or level on the board without that argument was never presented and so that wasn't the basis for the rejection and that's what the future was trying to support here they're trying to change the rejection now and say language would support that because they make clear the examiner continues to rely on waves research to teach the encrypted right that's one thing if exam relied on but maybe the examiner also relied on other things as well in addition to that and  had a valid issued patent they're entitled to maintain that and then unless the patent office can meet the standard of showing that it was obvious this nomination here that is not only based on a proper claim construction that it was clearly conveyed to the applicant and that all the arguments  examiners answer that you're saying work for the pages that represent the examiner is full explication of its conception of the drug and then and then i can see for myself relying on the question of whether wave research futures encryption i think it's confusing as it says it's moot because we're not solely rely on but they're still relying on it it's not clear what they're relying on it for and they're corruption as claimed so in christian determined at least in part by the object tagamet presented to tonight by and then this examiner specifically says that based from a continuation application the hundred two rejection so the appeal brief to the board had arguments about one of two in way of research teaching all the limitations of the claim and the examiner in the answer withdrew the one  reject but the board still had those arguments in front of them and i think addressed all of the arguments that texan made including whether we every church taught encryption but i think it's clear from the examiner tag that determined the encryption staff and so they it's their argument at seven hundred ninety seven the last sentence it talks about the the digital assets themselves are left on modified and as they are system resources such as documents stored an update by members of the enterprise would not be more suited to be encrypted according to a complex  we can argue about those here today right his particular robot so what's your specific response to his going that this by the board having hung on to way which seems to have least in part or why wouldn't that be viewed as a new ground because the board's civically says some of these i mean these arguments are moved to the extent that the one zero two rejection is now withdrawn and though the board does say the examiner keeps three continues to rely on corruption there's nothing wrong with the borderline on two references to teach the encryptions team the examiner and the board expressed a knowledge that acknowledged the tech said was correct that way of research did for teaching that label that encrypts to that you know determine secret missions and that was the one of the three rejection and i think it's hard to believe that tex i did not have knowledge that that was the examiner gather that's sort of the gist nobody disputes that there is some reliance on weight research for encrypting but not reliance in the sense of we have no substitute that's true my colleague just said so here encrypting it teaches encrypting not the way that's used in the past and it's not clear if the exam or the board would say the encrypting a pond is the same as the encrypting in the four three three pub if that's the argument then that argument needs to be hashed out because that's not what you think the board found in wave research and really didn't and maybe even couldn't have they found every research at m t v and v five hashing algorithm which is what you would do if you take of a giant file you can compress it and if i overgeneralizing or speaking you can get a look at twenty seven string character and that will be representative of the contents of that file and you could then do that to another file and also get a twenty seven string character but he said you character string you can compare those two and see if you have identical files never take that twenty seven character string and get back to the original document it's just a hash number that she used for integrity it has nothing to do