certainly understood them as well as they can be understood there are two things i would like to say though that are not necessarily stated in the briefs i have some questions from the troops actually are in the figure yes yes where is that in their record it's stated in the reference itself you're either well i'm sorry where the figure itself is not literally  that's correct well a picture is worth a thousand words you know and that's the point then the point is the point not in the readiness to make these griefs as pardon these cartoons were not present below the cartoons were not included in the briefs in this liberal form that's correct so what was it that you said is not necessarily state of the br well the the patent office you wrote it in in its reply brief states and i'm looking at page nineteen they state at least four things on that page that are as a matter of technology factual reality untrue incorrect and don't apply to this case factual question that we have to give deference to the so that or its determinations no not if they're factually incorrect or not if the reference itself contradicts what the  twenty one of your of your blueberry you say any person skilled in the art would recognize immediately on ratings licensure that one quarter inch slice and your phone jack a figure twelve well quote melt down close quote modified in structure do it incorporate a ground or subject the is intended by mel putting aside your cartoon figure frying i don't find a transform that all by itself tells you tells a person skilled in the art that this really devise and my question to you wise where in the record do we know that a person skilled in the art would know that you know i mean you can say well you should know that i need to know in the record well what i'm saying is that the record teaches that to a person skilled in  can be transformed don't direct current cannot be transformed where is that or that's just the reality of factual technology reality it can't be that statement in and of itself teaches any person knows anything about electricity knows anything about transport transforming electrical signals that that signal is necessarily an alternating current signal or you previously characterized phone jack correct but we also did say that this reference in another place cannot be used for d c power entire record of the appeal was devoted to teaching away this because mr ellis is not making any specific arguments about the claims that don't involve a ground contact of claims fourteen eighteen in one thousand i don't take the position that mr else is not qualified to express opinions on this this area of art we're not taking that position i i don't know that we would concede that he is an expert in the area but he certainly permitted to submit a declaration and the examiner considered the declaration actually in the examiner ultimately said he discredits it in its entirety or did he just discredit specific workings of it well he rebutted specific portions of it he but he did consider it so he noted there were problems with it there was a lack of e basis for example there was not any specific analysis of the claim language at issue but then he went on and this is appendix six seventy five in particular to go on to say that he was considering the declaration they went on to consider paragraph by paragraph and rebut why the points made by mr ellis were not persuasive on obviousness but your response and your friend on the other side when he said that the presence of a transformer in less injured necessarily required to me well i don't know that that is necessarily true that i'm not aware of anything in the record that says one way or the other that same paragraph and sausage are also talks about the possibility of being run on battery power which is typically direct current but in any event the examiner found that the teachings of slots slots under would support either alternating current or direct current and there's been no real rebuttal to that finding and at the end of the day we have a prior art system that has already the positive and negative contacts and we're just talking about adding the third contact for ground which is something that this reply brief page eight admits is universally known to any person even someone not skilled in the art to have a third contact and the reason the examiner specifically looked him out is that outreach is a ground contact that makes a connection before  the positive a negative contacts do which reduces sparking mal taught that that is a problem in other plug and jack connections standard connections such as what slash slash and or scuse me uses and so they would be obvious me to come here to tell you that it is literally impossible to reema reinvent reengineer his device from a phone jack the phone jack is the one and only embodiment of roughly twelve different iterations that are disclosed in this lesson to reference that's even relevant to this case the rest of those iterations the rest of that disclosure doesn't call for or disclose a mounting system an electrically powered device that mounts a connection that penetrates amounting all the only iteration is that one phone jack and that phone jack as depicted in that patent and describe is something that every person skilled in the art knows is purposely designed to work on micro