of obviousness this was a single reference obviousness case where supposedly allow was the reference providing a motivation at least to modify leasing the primary reference to practice the claimed invention and the supposed modification of leasing was was going to be that we would extend that front passenger side airbag into the back seat to protect the rear passengers a problem with the district court i'm with the  decision is that that was a flawed analysis of the entire record there was no evidence in leasing in loud even from the expert testimony advanced by the petitioner that one would have would have extended that airbag from the front passenger side to the rear passenger side now the case law from this court as your owners are fully aware says that when you have a single reference obviousness case in the proposal or the theory is that one would have modified it to add a missing structural limitation this court of law says that analyzing k s r and the whole bit says that you have to have documentary evidence you have to have something reserve are often says that you can you can take into account the practicalities of what you're looking at what if you look at that that's right you can take into account common sense when and and here way actually clarifies it in this court when you have a combination proposed where all the reference all the claim limitations are actually there it's a different world entirely under this course precedent when you have a single reference theory and your your theory of obviousness is that someone's going to take a structural claim imitation and tack it on top of what's not there in the single reference there we have strict scrutiny not those w common sense to work with you to look at that and say ok this is what i and to do combined here truth absolutely true in the case of a proposed combination where all the claimed limitations are already disclose not true in the case of a proposed obviousness theory where you have a single reference and it's an entirely missing the claim limitation i'm not standing here telling you that it's missing the claim limitation i'm talking about the leasing reference my my my brother bill will have to address that because in his own petition at page twenty two of the record they acknowledge that the leasing prior art does not disclose in airbag a single airbag air bag it doesn't even come from the ceiling it comes from the side and sort of if you if you can imagine you're sitting in the car and the window would be at one level below the window level allow airbag would would sort of pop out right next to you on the side below the window level that's allowed that's a separate airbag so there's not is any suggestion in lao in leasing or even in the expert testimony advanced by a mile of the somebody put laus technology in the combination with leasing it's the magnetic pull the gravitational pull of a skilled artisan would be to take the ostensibly working and fully functioning disclosure of loud and actually least whether they do or don't or can't or can't has nothing to do with this case just because there's an alternative they could have an alternative combination they could have done doesn't mean that th r ok and that was the hearing aid case so if you if you can picture a hearing aid with multiple electronic modules one of them is in the back of the ear and the others in the interference the issue there was  the claim had a requirement of a multiple prong electrical connector so the common sense that was supposedly found via the interparty is reexamination examiner and then run by the bore was that it would have been common sense because everybody knows that a lecture hall connectors can have multiple plugs it would have been common sense to say use a multiple plug for that electrical connector and this court was absolutely in fact that if you're going to go in that direction with a single referee modification theory you have to have documentary evidence that that existed in the world you can't just use your judicial common sense you can't use your hindsight common sense in the year two thousand and eighteen there must be documentary evidence so the type of thing that we don't see here is for example you know a doctor a doctoral thesis deposited at the library of the university of michigan you know where they do a lot of automotive research you don't see a doctoral thesis popping out of nowhere saying hey let's let's make these airbags encroach into the into the other passenger compartment nothing like that exists on the record we have the conclusory testimony of the expert he only the only thing he ever really says on this point is he says it would have been obvious i mean he puts the word obvious in the only if you call it probative sentence in his paragraph fifty eight on page seven thirteen that's the definition of a conclusion or expert opinion what he never says even in his testimony when he's trying to say i suppose he's trying to support the case he never says that one would have extended he never even says it's common sense by the way that one would have extended leasing xfce front side airbags rearward into the rear passenger compartment and by the way the claim limitation we're talking about actually has the word extending the word extending that's very important what that leads you to this is what the legal conclusion of obviousness is flawed that leads you to a second air bag and i haven't said this clearly enough i apologize the claim requires a single side to curtain airbag yes it is to me i mean can't we conclude whether it's is such a notion of common sense these are technological designs where you have to accommodate many factors in the engineering and the safety engineering especially of a car well this is one other aspect  i would concede that a reasonable expectation of success analysis receives the deferential review and i'm not debating that that standard over your view is deferential substantial evidence but here the ultimate legal conclusion of obvious must be rationally based there's no reasoning for why the skilled artisan would have done this change this modification alteration to leasing where there's no record support that there is any any  on page fifteen and they've had expressed in that that and clearly articulate it's that the petitioner was relying on is relying on a combination of the two references and so it's not a single reference obvious obvious so one of the fundamental positions that the patent owner is taking here is is just misapplied what the board did find was that there was evidence to modify  licensing to extend the airbag into the rare seat we were seat and the reason for doing that was the like pretty straightforward reason to protect rear seat what we're looking at with licensing is the kind of the sum total of all the claims and we're focusing primarily on going to that disputed limitation of whether or not a single airbag extends to the rear but what licensing and allow address are all the different limitations of the claim and that's why the whole missing element kind of thesis that they have is is incorrect because there is a single airbag single airbag as the board described in and did their careful analysis said that that single airbag could be extended into the rear and the reason why it could be due could could be extended is that that protection of the rear seat  and that's fundamentally i think is the job the board had to do and they did it the the had no nurturing complain about the result about the combination whether or not the more in their view logical combination would be a combination of law and licensing would be to airbags one in the front one in the rear but that's not what the board considered that's what our position was and what the board credited our expert testimony with was things that we're getting from while one of the other lao has a single inflator louv has kind of the set up it's protecting both the front and the rear so so the main thing we're getting from law is that teaching of the protection of the rear seat that is correct your honor but i don't want to kind of isolate what lao is teaching because what it's teaching is is is so much more about the project use of airbags and protection it's the reason why and it's the reason why my colleague it's not changing like it is not you know kind of saying that the references can you can mine they clearly can be combined and what their challenge is that they want to have a different combination then the board considered they want to have a different fifty eight of the expert report which is page seven thirty eight if there's also expert testimony with regard to the motivation to combine and  and throughout his deposition he talked about the testing that would be required in all the things the initiate of a reasonable expectation of success that someone skilled in the art would have and i think it's important to recognize that the board credited i think if i if the board has any questions i'd be happy to analyze any questions that we have to answer them but if not i will see the rest of my time thank you the entire side of the vehicle or whatever it is that that there would be details in the implementation that might provide an easier solution but it looks to me again taking a quick look at the claims as if the claims all really are broadly directed without a few actual words but still without changing the concept the broad concept of an entire curt single airbag that extends across multiple side apartments as a single side curtain airbag for two passenger rows that's correct and and if i may i hope that answers your question your honor if i made the turn to what i just heard from from my brother here he indicated that the record shows the testimony relied on by the board was that the airbag could be extended i mean it could be extended if we go to this court case law could have done or could extend it's never the law it's would have that's the legal standard that supports a motivation to combine or suggestions change  modify its would have not could have and if one one other important point about the case law that we have to put on the table here is that that motivation or suggestion has to lead to the claimed invention it has to suggest and achieve the claimed invention and that's kinetic concepts and all the cases after that such as new vase of so one one and one final point before i step away with it that there were in fact undisputed reasons why one would not have approached leasing to make the modifications suggested by the petitioner and and there were many reasons but these particular ones i'm going to mention were undisputed by nine hundred ninety five frontal airbags that come to the passenger from the very front were required if you put a frontal airbag into the leasing prior art it's got a torso airbag coming from the ceiling and the side air bag that's connected to that torso airbag and out of position occupant would have been subjected to what i'm going to call a one two punch and at seventeen twenty five to seventeen twenty six we have our expert even more powerful in plater to accommodate the expansion supposedly that's going to happen to make the single air bag even bigger to go to the rear seat so the one two punch would be exacerbated and if you can imagine a severe spinal injury or death will unnecessarily occur and i say unnecessarily because the skilled artisan would run away screaming from a reference like leasing one final point if i may or i see i'm beyond my time and but often  s very quickly seventeen twenty eight children who are out of position can have their heads and spines crushed by the leasing technology for the reason not to go there so therefore the legal conclusion of obviousness was wrong your hono