in two of the prior art tyranny that where robotic arms moved and manipulated the surgical tools while the surgeon was remotely located at a control panel and the rd site where motor controlled surgical tools under a computer direction but where the surgeon still physically held the device during the surgery and an example of the rd type is the whitman prior art and there are other publications describing the same to the nd type of system and as such when properly construed are not anticipated by women at the can rate raised to claim construction issues before the board robotic system and tool mounting portion which together in the context of the school's invention confirm that the claims do not cover whitman's handheld system for council can we talk about the mounting question  i'm having a hard time understanding exactly what you're saying and in your loop brief is it your claim that the mounting tool portion is what provides support for the surgical tool or are you arguing that the robotic system provides support for the surgical tool to question your honor it's it's d both thank you that's why i asked i'm kidding go ahead the  seems to me and looking at the plane claim language and the specification it seems equally plausible that the toll mounts and portion the mounting turn that you are emphasizing the board didn't get enough  saying that i think that the transmission is supported by the tool mounting portions and other parts of the tool they use the word support which comes from the plane claim language itself later in the claim but none the less what why is that and i'm supposed to understand that the two mounting portion means that it's not wanted on the robotic system as opposed to what might you know on the plane claim language they seem to be more logical which is that the toll is mounting on the tool bones and portion in the in the context of what's written in the specification your honor i think it's very clear that the tool mounting portion as described is the portion this is mounted to the robotic arm for example twenty eight this is at appendix one hundred and ninety the st paragraph which begins that one line on going down through address as as what your honor just raised that the tool is attached to that but but does not take into account that the specification describes the tool mounting right because that is the entire context of this particular invention the the invention is not directed towards a tool that is held by a surgeon at all the whole point of this invention was to arms and we think the board's construction was just too broad yes it is the broadest reasonable interpretation but it's on reasonable to interpret to a mountain course and in this context to precisely wrong with the board's interpretation structure for possible attachment to the tool driving simply so they're going to have a they they have agreed that it's going to be possibly attached to your no because there's a difference between operability which means that it is then under control and physically which means it is attached to claim it is directed to supporting the surgical tool well again your honor this this goes to the to the to school here in the specification the claim can be broader than what is disclosing the specification and reasonably what is disclosing the specification is that the tool has to be mounted to the robotic arm this is part of the problem here is that you know this looks very much like a means to function claim and if it's not then the claim language itself has to really call out the structure and you're asking us to go through several steps to figure out what the structure is  again i think the board said that no one interpreted this term below as being means the function term is if i may think one minute and i know i'm in my rebuttal all i'll use that i also didn't want to discuss the term robotic in my opening argument because there again the board it's true robotic system too broadly there is only one robotic system disclosing the entire specification included is again not consistent with the specification is there any questions on that otherwise i'll reserve my my remaining time ok thank you  particular ones disclosed as cover so there's really no question there's not a definition here and i just also want to point out that an appendix two thousand one hundred and fifty eight we pointed out in our briefs that dr sue mino admitted that their definition was incorrect that there's no choir meant you have a slave card for example and he admitted that so given that admission not sure why they keep arguing that somehow there's a definition when our own expert  abort should have said ok so it's obvious it would have been obvious to combine the two there's no dispute that all the elements would be there but then the board essential he said now you need to show not only a motivation to convert whitman to be connected to a robot you need to show a motivation to keep the whitman shifter intact as opposed to ripping it out and there is no requirement for that in the law of requirement actually it's our understanding from k s r that the motivation to combine comes from finding a benefit some benefit to the combination and then that would motivate one skill in the art to make the combination and so what are chaos argument is this your honor k s r there was no pedal that had all sorts of features that went beyond a typical necessarily pick this reference there's other adjustable references just will peddle references to beck and what the supreme court i think says clearly is well that's not correct you might start with from scratch and just build a basic adjustable  but you also might take the preexisting one such as a sauna and so it would be obvious to take an adjustable pedal and add an electronic throttle control that would be obvious to apply to all the adjustable pedals including assata and what we're saying is that's exactly what we have here you start with whitman whitman is a surgical stapler with a shifter built in and then the question is would it have been obvious would have been a motivation to modify whitman to be connected to the tyranny and the board's pretty much as already said yes yes we see the tyranny does make a suggestion to make this combination and we pointed that isn't part of the problem that whitman shifter is optional and the board say that's not that's not sufficiently motivated right next to the factual conclusion would have been obvious to take that and make it in a robot of size and so connected to the tyranny room would there be a benefit to making that connect to the tyranny of robots and once and there is a benefit it doesn't matter whether the shifter is needed or not in that circuit there's a benefit to making that whitman device work with the robot and we believe that's what k s r says that you don't parse out all the different functionality in the primary reference if it's obvious to adapt whitman for use with the tyranny robot it's obvious to use the shifter and women it's already there what could be more obvious right in some sense optional features come along for free you know if it's obvious a car from diesels to gasoline or gasoline to electric and that car is prior a car has a radio in it well it would be obvious to keep the radio you don't need to show well you know it's because it's disclosed now you argued that that told the board that whitman internee individually displayed more than four functions and out of work that they each displayed four functions more than four functions and you cite a bunch of stuff in your blue brief but i don't none of those appendix sites i think support what you're saying all they suggest is that collectively  that were more than four functions but it doesn't say that either one used more than four functions i'm sorry on i must have misspoke i said that's correct too quickly so let me be clear what our position is tierney shows four functions wittman shows for functions they are a different set for functions that's what we've argued we said was when you combine whitman tyranny you would want the combined benefit of all those functions and so in the record tim ruff aren't exactly the tim application which is prior art which we used to combine for claim eleven is a dual axis stapler that has the five functions so the part definitely shows that but we are also saying that one of skill in the art scene that tyranny discloses dual axis articulation would like to keep that in the combination and therefore it's totally appropriate to say you  they said there is no known system more than are but we did you say that in your petition exactly i'm trying to figure that out ok so in our petition what we said is you could have more than four functions and you could want the tyranny functions as well and there is a discussion of tyranny having dual access capability and it points out that for mapping action one is articulation of wonder factor about axis a one and action two is movement about access  and so it's showing the articulation is that how does that equate because when you're combining whitman with tyranny whitman has four but only single position i don't see that your honor we don't say that what we say is you could have more than four functions possibly up to six to eight we discuss that in the petition we don't use the words oh by the way you know once you which is something whitman doesn't have that when you combine it with whitman you would carry that function over so and we had other motivations as well that the board just kind of disregarded the most significant probably being idea is that the shifter somehow it would have been obvious to keep the shifter when it's sitting and whitman is what we say is where the board had totally hypothetical scenario there is no evidence in the record of that hypothetical robotic arm ever being actually in the prior art so that is not a concession unto amounting portion points to thirty four lines fifty to fifty five as another example this is the state of the tool embodiment describes an interface arrangement that's particularly well suited for amount seen the robotically controllable medical tool to at least one form of robotic arm that's the tool mounting portion it's mounted to the robotic combination and the board made factual findings that the evidence supporting that combination was a fact the evidence showed that even if there was a general motivation to combine women in tyranny they would not have included the shift there pointed to this was a situation where if the comma is the art was combined you would end up with four dr elements driving the four driven elements in had five function do you agree with that i mean i am looking at him and i'm not sure that's correct what your response my response your honor is that intuitive never pointed the board include the shifter in order to have more than four functions i know that they knew that they had to say that additional point that there is a part that has more than four functions given the existence of tem and statements with that i believe should be dispositive as we pointed out that one of the benefits of a shift or is that you can control one function at a time and you can basically make sure you don't control two function and now they say well this was an quoted in a petition well it wasn't quoted but certainly paragraph fifty four of dr nobel's declaration which is what i'm pointing you to was cited in the petition for support and if