hon judges good morning the genius that's a good start i would like to thank you the genius of the invention claimed in this appeal shows in its very st step to reduce the volume of liquid organic way to the st step is to add something to the wakes in particular in the  one adds a porous material such as sand to the liquid organic waste as an aspect of the invention of the sand which is the physical environment of the organic waste in a manner that  can then be reduced in following him using a special type of burning coal smouldering combustion unlike the flame combustion in which the burning liquid or solid becomes gas applied in the burning gas makes the flame of the smoldering combustion reaction occurs directly between the combusting material and oxygen and there is no flame organic liquids do not smoke there by themselves the inventors realized that they could in chief smoldering combustion of organic liquid ways by mixing it with a porous medium such as sand now we understand the invention th concern is you know the reason you're here is because the court concluded that the two references behind make the invention obvious not obvious so why don't you i mean i mean you've got to convince us on a substantial evidence review that the board was wrong in concluding that these two references did the trick an obvious i want to turn to that issue so the principle reference used in the rejection has little to do with the claim subject matter because the principle reference does not concern the claim that of reducing the volume of liquid organic wakes i don't understand what you're saying that coal tar can be a waste right or it can be a waste and in fact it's referred to specifically in the specification here as a waste coal tar is one of a bunch of things that can be referred to as waste but in fact what seems not to a future purchase it is exactly and in fact the very beginning of the application in paragraph two in the background arts section appendix page twenty eight dollars management of organic liquids when they become wastes it's a complex problem so if the inventor here had gone out and found some supply house i know what i ordered and i get it if i go to the ground and pick stuff up that's randomly put there that has been discarded i have no idea what it is and that's the difference in  in many respects of course in this thesis peroni was just testing methods every mediating contaminated soil now if it's contaminated soil it already has stuff in it emanates oil that's prior art yes certainly is prior art it does talk about remediating contaminated soil but that's not the subject of this application this application understand it it is that is the question and in the prior art what had been invented was a way of starting with soil underground stuff that's below ground that has  in that was that was in the prior art and parolees thesis concerns that prior art but what's claimed here is not stuff that's in the soil i have a collection of liquid wings for example when i change the oil in my car and when i was a kid i did that when i change the oil in my car the oil that comes out of that car is wakes right it can't be reuse and i have to have a way of discarding it that's liquid not contaminating soil now in the present case it's liquid that i have collected and i need to dispose of it what do i do with that oil that i took out of my car with these guys say what the application says and this is surprising that's why i began with that because it seems crazy they take that oil and they say mix it with stand mix that oil with sand then start blowing air through it warm it up and you can get that thing to make a reaction that generates heat and gradually consumes the liquid of course i'm left with the same hand but that's all right i can deal with sand i've got rid of the  the issue so the fact that an apple on soil in one's not that well not the issue the issue is why isn't that significant nation to one ordinary skill and we are certainly what one did in the past was important and if you remember the starting material in the prior art is contaminated soil the starting material gets in the present the claim is that engine oil i've drained out of my car what's the difference the engine oil isn't mixed with anything the engine oil is just engine oil how do i get rid of it so the invention says take that engine oil mix it with sand and then a smoldering combustion in the prior art it was already mixed right somebody had already taken the engine oil and dumped it into the ground in effect that's the problem that was dealt with in the prior at the engine oil got into the ground how do i clean up the ground and so the invention says ok into the ground blow some oxygen generate some heat and get smoldering combustion going in the present case we don't have contaminated ground we don't have any ground at all we just have the engine oil that came out of the car how do i get rid of that engine or you mix it with something that's what our guys figured out that's what our cars have it already the case in a prior art no mixed with dirt who did the mix i think it the thing is what might happen to you barry member of the i will process case if stuff happens by accident we're not talking about that in this case the person who has the engine oil to get rid of purposely ad heals get talked into us not talk about getting excuse me he does not talk about getting rid of the waste for only discusses removing soil contaminants and in that case the oil that was spilled is a contaminant yes ground or only as it in the ground with the big deal it's a huge deal because the step of mixing wasn't taught before or understood and in fact peroni had worked on this project he was studying remediation and it took him a long time working with the other inventors to figure out this is a big deal the idea that you can reduce the volume of something by mixing sand into it is extraordinary quote a single place in peronne there's no quotation of any sense there's not even a citation of any sentence that talks about reducing the volume of wakes given mixing because he's creating these content of coal tar and that's all some people tire claim right there and the only part that's missing is the batch mixing step which the examiner and the board look to beaumont which describes it's another process for  trading industrial organic waste and it describes continuous mixing and batch mixing it actually said when you're producing generate smaller batches of smaller amounts it's preferable to use a batch mix especially when you're trying to obtain a specific solids content level and that's exactly what perl is doing it ceases so it makes sense to use a batch mixing process and even grants counsel argued and they were why brief you wouldn't use a continuous mixing method with stimulating the contaminated soil he actually started with the liquid called tar and the sand and he mixed it together he carried out all of those claims steps and one of skilling are reading that that thesis wouldn't be limited to what dr prone was thinking at the understand it so it's not limited to what dr provine was was thinking at the time and the motivation to combine thought i think is pretty pretty strong because they both treating industrial waste they both have to mix the contaminated or the waste material with some other ingredients there's only two ways to do it and when you're trying to get to a desired solid content level i'm not says that batch mixing is preferred so the board takes the position there is no need to show a basis for it because boma is only used to show feeding a series of batches of the waste organic liquid and the porous material into a vessel the board state wrong in the st place because beaumont describes processing the adamites sludge and fails to describe feeding batches of the waste organic liquid in the poorest material into a that's a sludge as we explain in our grief is an organic waste and if you look at their sludge stuff it has nothing to do with organic waste all across the board it's wrong in the nd place because there still has to be some reason turning to bone the examiner argues there is an advantage of mixing batches of reduced size so as not to operate when enough material is not available for mixing thereby conserving energy compared to a continuous feed that happens to be quoted in our opening brief on page thirty it makes no sense because peroni concerns remediation of contaminated soil for which bat processing would make no sense remember with contaminated soil we're feeding area into it we're heating it and it just goes on a continuous basis and indeed as we  brief that each benchtop experiment of prone to already involves a very small volume of a distinct and unique combination of components and so batch processing in that context makes no sense i don't see how those two references get combined at all given each possible way that they they could be combined the board give short the board has done although a patent offices around the world have allowed claims of this technology leading to patent grass in thirty one dollars countries the board has acted otherwise it is chosen to ignore the pesky facts of this case that undermine its position it ignores key reference evidence in the prone a declaration the failure of the prone the thesis to explicitly disclose this method of reducing the volume of above ground  absence of a rationale for combining the peroni thesis concerning remediation of contaminated soil using small ring combustion with boma concerning flame combustion of atomized sludge and it ignores the fact that the