this is a review of the patent office opinion or the p t s opinion that we have to at least somewhat look to their reasoning in deciding whether or not they were right or wrong obviously this court can do it at once but  avoid putting too much of our own reasoning to try to bolster what they may or may not have have done correctly because my client didn't have an opportunity to respond to that at the time the pats on the panel said one point i will make i think we just need a supplemental brief on this is a pat since expired so while originally the case was looked at in the broadest reasonable interpretation of a clean construction that's no longer the case and that will come into play with one of the arguments that i make today ok so i'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about motivation to combine and again i think a lot of the issues we just talked about in a prior appeal are going to be very similar in this appeal to what i'd really like to focus on in my time as the court we prefer to get back into some of those issues are three diligent production practice we're going to talk about that a little bit the second thing is whether or not the hill rahm emanuel which is the second dead reference in fact had a communication network in it and that's where when i mentioned the issue of claim construction comes switch to be a communications pin communications network and then finally i want to talk just briefly about the p tabs sole basis for finding a motivation at the mine in this particular case which was an express disclosure in the heinz reference talking about greater processing speeds and you probably saw this from our briefing but our position there is there is no discussion of higher processing speed with talks about high transmission speeds and high assessing it doesn't ever compare those to anything else and there's certainly no indication in the record anywhere that one of those going the are looked at that and said well that's going to be faster i know from reading this reference that that's going to be faster than what's currently being used in these peer to peer networks that would i guess increase my opportunities to do to reverse this at first i came to the same conclusion this is going to be very factually intensive should i leave this for later and i've convinced myself over the last few months that that's not the case and the reason is we've got one was fairly clear that you can come up with different ideas and you don't even have to implement them but just because you have multiple ideas doesn't and doesn't detract from the fact that that's still an invention and so it's it's our belief that there was  conception and then we go to them to motivation i'm sorry build a reduction to practice we have a span of eight months where we've got over twenty documents showing and this is from twenty years ago and granted it would be great they have docking we had from them but we don't we have twenty documents that show the continual and very robust process of developing this this very complex hospital bed and so for one looking now to try to show diligent doesn't practice twenty years i submit you're not going to find much better evidence than a continual process with very detailed time schedules all the way up through i think it's march of one for getting to the year but the march well on the morrison declaration first of all mr morrison has been a pack attorney at stryker for many many years and knows his technology well that said we don't really need his testimony i mean the documents themselves that look at the documents themselves and in fact i have for purposes of this appeal i really focused in on just one document that i believe shows the concept of aig they have other issues with the other documents we had originally pointed to like the inventors names on got his his signature on there so he was certainly part of this and it goes through and it has to the different elements is not what we originally i think submitted to morrison declaration we didn't necessarily very shortly thereafter we got documents continuing on throughout the project that showed exactly what they were thinking here and yes it was one of the four ideas i i don't dispute that but it was a it was a complete idea there were point i you know i primarily rest on this document so if actually we don't feel that this is substantial evidence than that that's my case but i think it is and that's our position and it's been our position that i had that the address if you would the second alternative ground and the p t have employed which is hines plus the hill run manual assuming that the whole round manual does not display does is well that in effect i guess you're saying that regulations invalid i read your tasers on that they don't seem to me to really support the proposition that regulation saying if you want to raise that kind of an issue have to of whether or not there is evidence that shows putting these two things together i mean it kind of backlash started whether there's evidence to show that putting those things two things together would have been something a person skilling are could have done and  specifically there's just it's kind of a bird thing there's no evidence of that point to i mean this came out i was with a lady we think it was part of what was originally dress by examiner but it's kind of just an afterthought well we could have done this again the p tab certainly can develop patents i've argued to them that they should always pass in certain cases but to do so they need to have a reason and they need to have a basis and they need to show  looking at the the manual which doesn't talk about a communications network at all so it's not a question of subject one communications network and the other sneered saying you've got to basically find that now you're trying to pull something out of thin air and throw it in here even those didn't even have a communication network so yes i think that's the other point is the motivation in mind there is even greater than the lack of motivation by the end of the ability to show and they had even more power and again one of the problems i have with that argument is a point that i was just making is why should we at least remained on this because the board really didn't point to any evidence it's just simply said it's there well i think fifty the boards it was a take it to the board found that there would have been a motivation to combine whether or not they will run manual is deemed to have a communication network because the hill around manual that requires user input to be adjusted and that would have been obvious to implement the hind network in the hill run manual for it the record shows that there would have been a motivation to combine the high peer to peer network with the hill running and that's because the lying and chaos are the board and the examiner look to the teachings in various patterns and prior references construction issue relates the fact that most of the claims such an issue does not affect that announcement and that's also because the examiner made the point in its final office action that it was not simply relying on the situation of that the that adding such a network to the product to the hospital as it is throat in the home run manual as well as in travis would have been predictable so that's another thing that the examiner pointed tail and then the other thing that the construction ever be right the broadest reasonable construction could be right it could also it could also encompasses a lot of construction could be but in this case what the board found is that reasonable for the court to now look at that standard under a peer i can or to determine whether or not the course construction was reasonable now to the extent the court finds that it was not reasonable the court can then with what philip standard because it does happen over at the ill so using that that if the fact that the patent expires after the board's decision to relevant to what we should be doing that is correct your honor and also going back to the other alternative that the court found and  construction you would advocate that we look at it through the lens of the question of whether or not the board was correct on conception and whether the board just gave too little credit to what it what it is that that was understood  on the word declaration but looking back at the more separation if you look at page eighty one one seven seven which is paid for the more that variation in the second row more would readily recognize that a differential inner peace channel structure would include a plurality of connection points for the peers on the peer to peer network to access the channel now much more than here is making a conclusory statements about what's included in the also the director find that see that the board and the family were cracked in finding that there was a reduction to practice there and that's because here hold on even conceded during its argument that the prosecution of the patent issue really began in run out of time so let's talk about that where is the motive motivation to combine and the reasonable expectation of success where does the board cite for evidence with respect to now first the examiner pointed to the fact that there were different types of communication networks that addressed similar issues that the as the invention and here they look at for instance behind preference and now with the hind reference disclose is that using a peer to peer communication network increases the speed of the data the reliability of the data and allows you to upgrade model on your on your device and this upgrading of modules it's one of the key a prior art second that hill rahm emanuel shouldn't have been combined because there was no substitution of a network because of the network alternatively we have the whole whether it's either of those whether hines somehow there was a teaching to combine heinz with those those two separate secondary references the the unlike the last case where there was absolutely no evidence in this case they try to point out that they say hines actually gives an express disclosure of the motivation combine it talks about higher processing speeds i think we've made very clear in our papers that that's just inaccurate that is incorrect kinds does not say that scientists talk about high transmission speeds but does not compare those speeds to any other type of application including the application that was in the itself wasn't high if it were networks as well and that there was no comparison whatsoever so there's nothing that would have motivated a person looking at one piece of art to combine it with the other that's i think a primary point that applies to both of the secondary references so both combinations it would it would work that way  on the pen expiration being irrelevant to the appeal i think and i didn't have the case with me but i think this court has been pretty clear that's not the case so i didn't have anything more on that the only other point i wanted to make was the question on conception when i just heard my opponent argue like that i think they're still trying to make the argument that because there were multiple options that somehow this document unworkable for conception document the other point though in the really the only other point i'd heard was if we don't use them or some double ration we don't disclose a plurality of connection points and that's the missing piece the big missing element going on i would point to the court's attention to a eleven eighty nine of that doctor and in particular and this is in our reply brief at the bottom of that page there is and this  in that exhibit there's a picture a block diagram that shows a bunch of different modules with a four hours of connection so to say that this document without mr morrison's testimony and i still believe mr morse is testimony should be something that should be