well as his skill level and actually do it and that's not the test for obviously and that was done over objections because it's not test for obvious the test for obviousness basically based on the teachings themselves and based on the teachings themselves here it is lot but there was someone think about it as a patent he said and this court said no that's that incredibility aside the teachings are clear and the teachings here are clear could you alternatively do it where you have a data descriptor in your latin and that is scripture and then you stop step into module two of five of french act so goes into for a one the block at the top of four ed if you do it that way you're still going to have the problem of unknown data types but let me tell you how type based descriptor and that soon tells you to do more than look at the descriptor that's a more complicated process that helps you to choose the right now and what the board is saying is we didn't have any testimony that if you compain sue with freida sac that you would stop with the category  algorithm so the question is is it appropriate to say well if you were combining them the best objective would be to completely wipe the to fall or is it also is here yes although i would disagree that there's no evidence that your do it because what the evidence is that you've stopped that descriptor is common sense you're stuck with that it's scripture because you're not going to waste time and potentially create an unknown that isn't there's not testimony do let's just assume that the board is correct that there is no testimony here that tells you to stop when you go beyond the descriptor situation let's assume that  as a matter of law was that to feed upon the obvious to us or is it sufficient to find obviousness that you could maybe tom a nation that will only go so far as the descriptor and that might not be the best solution but it looked at the prior art and it said the test here is very clear there they had for references and the supreme court followed a path from the initial one that said you needed the sensor down to where you put it on the pedal to where you put it on and not on the on the on the pedal foot and then you put it on the movable portion that's the teachings in the prior art and the teachings here are equally clear testimony aside or not because the only thing that's left here even if you assume that what dr chris air testified is the correct test and we don't agree with that but it's a correct test to look for that part of the corporation even if you assume that you're going to move past that a descriptor you're still going to have the problem of the known data types so is it obvious based on that teaching that common sense principle that's already in the prior art is it is that obvious to say you should still retain that default compression of safety that if you're moving past that that descriptor and the answer to that is yes you need a default safety it that the board is right that someone seeking the best solution would eliminate the whole by using the sue the on the situation in which there's a descriptor let's assume that that's correct which is a finding all the way it seems under some other cases is not sufficient to defeat obviousness of the words that it's obvious if a combination would give you the result even though a better combination would oh yes you're right i could agree one hundred percent for example an alibi rectum that was one of the arguments of the patentee made about the optimal combination and this court rejected that the optimal combination is not the only obvious combination because again the test is not what the one particular combination has to be as a board said here repeatedly for example in app x twenty nine dollars it has to be that specific combination there's only one that's going to be created that's illegal or that's not the test the test is what the invention whether the invention is within the grasp of an ordinary skilled artisan based on creativity common sense and skill in light of the teachings of the prior art and here it is clear because even if you move past that a descriptor even in that system you would still  and seventy six of su shows those ten categories of data what would you do with random data and doctors either said well you could create a random data category that's unknown data category even he admitted prove that a person of skill would have been motivated to combine frame jack to satisfy the claimant ations yes or no the same thing that's not the same thing but what they did is they want a step further and they said all the requirements all the criticisms active video that this court set of arises expert are prerequisites that you have to show how that one particular as they put it this specific one specific particular combination would actually work that's not the test for obviousness as this court has made clear  combination that you go whole hog and achieve the best solution or is it sufficient that you could stop with here with the descriptor category and achieve the patent invention yes your honor and it's this course case law says that it doesn't have to be optimal even inferior alternatives as court has said if your alternatives that are still obvious can validate and that's exactly what we have here assuming that paradigm the inferior alternative to actually be to stop it out of the script or is there a reason and motivation to do that yes the motivation is clear it's common sense you stop as not to waste time finding something that you know is going to slow down the system you're going to go there and you're going to use just use the data descript there was saying he was saying use it for a one you'd incorporate data type into to a five and therefore you choose it better he did and he did not say you would incorporate it in toto and therefore you do not need  in his deposition testimony he did not talk about the default wind because it's clear from the prior art that you still needed what dr chris there did talk about is how even in sue the unix file system you're still going to unknown data types so there's still a motivation at that solution here is to use sue all the time not just in the script or situation and that would make it unnecessary to have a default out of where it is another solution maybe not as optimal but another solution would be to use oo only in the descriptor situation and retain the default algorithm in our case you seem to be pretty clear that in the obviousness situation that you don't have to take the combination all the way if there's a motivation to replace part of the prior art and that's going to render it obvious even though the optimal solution would be to go all the way some comment on that yes thank you your honor so i actually agree with everything you said and i think it supports the board's decision and the reason is the following it gives the part of your statement where you said if there is a motivation to do the other approach that may not be the best optimal approach and that's what's lacking here so that they can be or did not find most certainly is a motivation to use to  but he did say that and this is that he point that if you do sue to find a better understanding of what the data type is when friend attack only has a descriptor then you certainly would keep using su to to here is that the petitioner now the appellant had a very specific theory that you do use when there is a data type and then you don't use to when there's no data type that's their theory and that's that's what we're talking about whether someone would be motivated to do both of those things and the board said well you need to prove both things for your motivation and why not just the st one where they said you need to stop because it would be a motivation to make it better by the theory sounds it was the petitioners theory the petitioners theory is and now the at home theory that if you have a data tie in from the track go ahead and use two to do further analysis to get a better idea of the data that already is a little bit odd but let's put that aside then they have a further requirement in their theory which is but if random check doesn't know the data type at all doesn't even have a descriptor don't use to figure out what the data type respect seems to be supported by the record that there wasn't any proof of a motivation to stop but i guess what i'm asking is why do you have to have a motivation to stop by sufficient that  not find any parameter attribute at all then use this defaults all in total and that's if not credited is the key thing that they need to show is also obvious to me under the part of the claim but you will never meet that last part of the plane and so to meet that last part of the plane they recognize this in their petition they said ok now we have to dish only say there's a situation where you would stop and would not use to it all and that's pretty an this appeal the question is whether there is a requirement under the law to have any motivation that is adequate to create that homma nation in a way that will meet all of the claim limitations not just some of them that's the question and their motivation to start if we're going to simplify that way gets down to some of the crime limitations but for them to be able to get to the rest of the claim limitations they need the motivation to stop i'm still not honor to get there to get there you would only have to use to whole you would have to be motivated to only use to one friend a check has a data type and to not use to when friend a check lacks the data type and their expert said that i don't think that's right i wouldn't do that i don't think that's motivated i didn't apply in on that i didn't say that that's what someone would do and our experts said yes people would not think that it's obvious to you that that doesn't make sense if you don't know what the data type is you would want to go and find out what it is if you have a good tool for it so their theory to meet the claims requires that they provide that motivation and they don't have evidence of it and that's the basis for the board's finding is that there is a necessary element of the combination that needs a motivation to meet the claims and that necessary element does not concern i do believe i understand your honor and it goes back to the root root of the statistical redundancies that's what real time was talking about as you're always going to be calculating the statistical redundancies and that's wrong on several fronts not number one it doesn't r friendships very simple here it's not anything that's complex instead of just the data type indicator you're going to try to look for the data type of the block and potentially to just go down see if you find that that if i if you actually know that that in the board reached a contrary conclusion by saying well your efforts that's not going to be optimal but it doesn't have to be optimal number one and number two the board reached that conclusion by saying you're going to corporate suit in total and then you have to tell us how you're going to take it back but