made in the petition fan once all recognize these new arguments and specifically asked the board for permission to file a civil reply or in the alternative to file a motion to strike those new arguments the board denied that request adopting that argument specifically adopted the argument at appendix seventeen and it's clear that the borderline on that new argument as part of its analysis if found because the light source doesn't extend through the  space between the emitting surface and the end of a natural end of the aperture at appendix twenty the only figure in goodman that shows a space between the emitter in the end of the aperture is figure seven a figure to  do that figure to see expanded version of the of the device when you collapse that down it appears to fill the space there's no disclosure in good that there is any space with respect to figure two c's emitter in the end of the aperture and the bore there's there's no testimony that there would be the only evidence that fit bit relied on to show that space was saying that oh well a person of ordinary skill we are would combine those different embodiments malan so never had an opportunity to respond to that new evidence and that new argument the board improperly adopted it at appendix eighty and layer three of the sato was the claimed light transmissive material but failed to provide any real evidence supporting that claim it argued only that because the figures showed that the layer three was clear that it since case in argue that layer three must be like transmissive material because it needs to protect the skin or protect the ahc the optical components of the device from the skin and relied on you expert testimony in that new argument the board relied on that new york minute in finding the claims on patton of war and that was a proper in light of the board's denial of its request to strike those new arguments into fellas or apply the  nd issue on appeal in new bass if this court held that a person of the board's findings must be supported by sufficient reasoning and it must explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art will combine two different references and must explain why a primary reference would benefit from the features of a secondary reference here the board failed to do that with respect to certain combinations with respect to the combination of good men and  the board found that good men would benefit from assad as reduction in motion artifacts and benefit from assad as wireless features however goodman itself doesn't need the reduction of motion artifacts and goodman is a device used in intensive care unit with patients that are suffering from the disability thing problems but the sensor of the men conforms to the skin such that it becomes part of the skin the sensor is has very low mass and has retained his conformance and the primary electronics of the sensor are actually separated from the sensor itself on the skin such that goodman states it eliminates motion artifacts those features eliminate and eliminate motion artifacts in goodman the site on the other hand is a wearable device that tracks heart rate but it has a relatively high mass for example if i'm suffering had just suffered a heart attack why would i want to use a wireless sensor that's battery operated instead of a sensor that's plugged into the wall and is very reliable the board never explained that instead the board just found that the benefits whatever they are outweigh the detriments of the combination but failed to support that finding with any reasoning nd with respect to the combination of the sata good men and hicks the board found that the lens of higgs would be beneficial to a sodding good men to direct or focus light however as hicks acknowledges itself the only time you need to lands is if the substrate doesn't the benefits that the primer references would achieve from the combinations of the board failed to conduct an adequate obviousness analysis can just disregard completely evidence of a teacher way as this court held in pulling this evidence of a teacher away is always relevant even if it doesn't amount to a teacher way the board must consider that evidence as part of its overall in that overall analysis of the motivation to combine second with respect to the board's findings of lack of written description of the board ignored the essence of the underlying specification is this court held in the leyland stanford case is the essence of the specification that controls not whether the claims map one dollar to one dollar with the exact words of the specification in here the board ignored that essence  claim covers a signal processor configured to remove motion artifacts using a bandpass sensor to remove a band of frequencies and produce a condition single the specification describes a st block that represents a conditioning stage that utilizes a band pass filter term move frequency bands outside of range of interest and a nd block that accepts that signal precondition signal from the st block to remove ocean artifacts it also discloses that both of those blocks can be a coded in a microprocessor that is in essence the claim at issue substitute claim twelve with respect to and finally with respect to indefiniteness the board found that several claims were indefinite for lack of aniseed it basis however this just ignores how person of ordinary skill in the art would read the claims for example substitute claim twelve receives motion related physiological information there's not multiple motion related physiological information disclos issue in this claim with respect to sanity and basis is the extraction of the physically physiological motion related information and then later reference to a string comprising motion related and sociological information claim is clearly referring back to the initial motion related physiological information that they're just extracted by the processor from the two motion sensors there and there's really no other way to read it and there's no evidence that a person  would read it ringback any other way with and i guess that this surprised me a little bit because i initially thought this was not indefinite because it's perfectly clear that there is no restriction on the nature of the multiplex output serial data stream comprising motion related physiological information because it doesn't say sad but then your position is that in fact there is a perfectly clear that there is an implicit restriction i'm sorry an implicit frustration on what about what this information is isn't that what the board said or said this is a definite because we can't tell from the clan line whether the string comprising motion related and physiological information whether the information in that string is the same information as it was referred to above and i would have thought from the language of course it doesn't have to be the same information as about it doesn't say yesterday so it's any string of information but your position is no that's quite wrong well my position is that those are the same it's clearly the same piece of information there's no disclosure separate information in the cell provided a manipulated figure of to see that left off the top two layers and that was something that it couldn't predict would have been the end in explaining why valence cells manipulated figure was a person ordinary skill in there would understand it that way and at the end of the day what we do know is that the board relied on figure to see and call nine lines thirty nine to forty of good men to reject valid cells arguments and it specification does allow does does discuss allowing light to be directed on a path right and so when we look at the again when we look at what happened with respect to figure a they had the opportunity to address it at the hearing they did address it at the hearing and at the end the board relies on figure to see and the specification of goodman to invalidate the claims and just assembly instructions on how those layers are put together again similarly under it amid soof its arguments regarding the dash lines is permissible rebuttal argument with respect to  b again fit been presented into the character and is in right cells argument on these matters is only a notice argument it's not an argument that there is a lack of substantial evidence transmitter limitations or disclose and claim six dollars and seven dollars o t let me turn to the motivation and combine because the board conducted a detailed analysis of the motivation to combine acquire it the board found that good references describe transmissive type p p g's hickson goodman both play sensors on a finger the board further than a sudden goodman describe uses by patients in a hospital setting all of these sensors or geared towards detecting health information and being able to read through motion motion is a constant issue and spent on there are a lot of patents and i've stood before this court and other occasions dealing with motion oximetry and even in an ice you set in a hospital setting with you know pediatric patients in the i c u you know small sick kids that are wiggling around and even adults and and others even in a hospital setting there's motion that has to be dealt with in each of these bands talks about that and so the board also described the concrete benefits for combining the references in the current and the reasons why  references for a missing element the board also found that goodman in assad would benefit from quote enhanced lens characteristics that were used in his in hicks and the board found one of ordinary skill would be motivated to modify goodman to take advantage of the additional motion artifact reduction in osaka so we're we are is a situation where as in no vargas the board was not required to address every piece of evidence cited by mail and cell in support of its detriment arguments we have two opinions in on these two appeals that are quite lengthy and each of them addresses the motivation to combine and actually address quite a number of the detriment arguments that were raised by valid cell so under l i directive in nov artist that's more than enough to form a from the board's fine let me let me talk about the amended claims briefly the  there are three separate grounds that the board found the man who claims to be invalid on obviousness written description and indefiniteness to prevail on appeal bill so has to show all three bases were incorrect and cannot do so here if we look at obvious accelerator to assata so again to teach in a way argument is not relevant instead but the board did was it it the boards combination implement group multiplexing they used hardware that was already found in a s if we look at the the written description issues again the boards factual determination that on that is entitle to deference under that in rail when's case and amended independent claim twelve requires reduce reducing motion artifacts that use at least one vand pass filter but the bandpass filter describe him to specification and call i'm twenty five winds forty four to forty five doesn't reduce motion artifact that's perform by a different filter lease one bandpass filter and that doesn't match up with what's described in specification so if we look at the indefiniteness issues again you know extract in physiological motion related  yes yes ok did the board recognize that or not recognize that i'm not i'm not i'm not one hundred percent sure i know i know you you're like four layers down or  we look at that particular issue you know there are there are arguments that i think you know with respect to what was done with dependency and claim fifteen but i'm not going to i'm going to take your your offer not to answer it with three minutes thank you may please the court so i just want to address a few issues here counsel noted that we had the opportunity to respond to these new arguments from its five oral hearing scores never found that to be sufficient we didn't get to refer to that think here if you don't need to refer to the figure in order to have it inform your analysis and rely upon it they specifically relied on pages ten through thirteen if it gets reply and those are the pages that were fit discussed figure seventy and they also made the finding that there was a separation between the emitter in the end of the aperture the only figure that discloses such a separation is figure seventy thanks so it must have relied on that figure affected dop did it of the petitioner came back and said oh no the references don't teach a way that's a clear back and forth but where your inner do sing and relying on new figures from a reference as fit did here with respect to figure we agree with an adopted titian as analysis and dr anthony's testimony so that doesn't cite the reply well it didn't say specifically that it wasn't declaration opening it was it was only submitted so that's not that's just not reply material right that the board says it is adopting well i disagree that the board is only adopting what reference in the prior sentence i believe that statement broadly as i noted earlier so it's not that the board didn't use the goodman reference also talk about how it's a apertures allowed light to pass well sure and that was it its original construction lighting interface was that the interface allows late to pass that's not the same as valence cells construction of light guiding interface which is to deliver light along the path so regardless of whether i guess the idea