undertaking any action to reduce tax alternately the way jones works is at this excessive points but the board identified these pre determined stops these pre determined locations the vehicle control unit which is the tag the purported tag the travels with the vehicle in jones ultimately decides whether to send its travel data to jones the space station control unit the structure alleged to form the reader we identify that in our pattern response that it's an organ we presented to the board  unit simply sending in the travel data that it has at the pre determined stops or locations don't constitute a temporal read and that the reader does is not a reader for reading each tag at each successive point ultimately what it comes down to is the vehicle features of the reader that is in claims eleven dollars twelve cents a reader for reading so and what's happening at the pre determined stops or locations in jones that the board's final written decision mapped to the successive points in the claims is that ultimately the vehicle control unit sends whatever data it has whatever travel that it has whatever purported identity information it has to the base station control unit the base station control unit isn't attempting to do anything when the tags read those successive points and it's not doesn't have features for reading these tags these reported taxes vehicle control units when those tags are at the successes points and for those reasons jones doesn't teach the attempting the rea  imitation claim one and it doesn't teach the reader for reading in claim eleven and the board erred in finding otherwise and substantial evidence does not support the board's decision i want to briefly address some of the arguments that the  that but even if that's true it doesn't necessarily change the principle here because ultimately the act of our of id and body meant in the claims nonetheless still requires attempting to read write and there's no attempt to read  jones as a station control unit at pre determined stops or locations as the claims require ex also contends in its red brief that one of the that simply receiving this travel data is enough to meet the attempting to read limitations and enough to meet the reader for reading limitations we disagree  mentally attempting to read attempting to obtain this identity information at the successes points and you know a reader for reading at each tag at each of these successive points features for reading at each of the success points is very so your honor it's ultimately conclusory it's just a pure it's a dixit from the expert and even if it were a well known option to score in that what we get from experts they're qualified in a certain area and they get their opinions in that substantial that i mean you can all come in here and say the experts opinions are conclusory when you don't like them but that's what experts are supposed to do give their opinion about what a skilled artisan understand sure maybe he could have explained it a little bit better but isn't the  me a later concerns on that even if you accept that everything the doctor he said was true and supported by substantial evidence it's not legally sufficient to establish a case of obviousness and you know ultimately what dr hill gives you is  and yes jones does teach that the other one trillion it ever titular times reach a certain locations or certain stops but ultimately what dr hill gives you is only that it was known to you cells and then he cites  even accepting that these findings is testimony that would cause issues of testimony of the expert oyez that wrong i don't think we would necessarily dispute that it was known that storing things and separate cells was not known and i'm not going to stand here and tell you that i am going to say though that he doesn't give you any reason to use eight a cell corresponding to each tag at each successive point in the context of jones because ultimately he states that yes it was known that you could review and even if you agree that his testimony provide substantial evidence there's simply not enough there there's no reason to actually do this and the board's findings on that regard are quite similar ultimately the board states you know this is finite options as a routine selection of the war doesn't make any factual findings of why there's a small number of options where identifies what those options are and to the extent the board's final written decision rests on some contention that were that there is one reading purcel versus multiple rea so those are the only two options the board didn't make that finding express that those are the only two options and there isn't evidence on the record that would support psychoanalysing alternately what dr hill's testimony comes down to is again even if you accept everything that he's saying is accurate and you could provide substantial evidence you have even legally deficient obviousness rationale here you have something that essentially is sure could that it could be used and there's no actual reason to do it in that regard his testimony is even appendix three hundred and forty three thousand three hundred and forty four in its patent owner responsible but that para like we explained makes the exact same distinction that the board found they made which is the difference between identity data and travel data which was a different than the one that they presented in their blue brief i v eight cites a case of multiple times in the grey brief that we agree with the law is was the board on notice was the board on notice that i was making this argument and the final written decision demonstrates that the board was not on notice the board says in the final written decision that i've made two arguments one was the definition of tag and two was the argument that we were just talking about identity data vs travel  this argument is way the nonetheless on the merits  only reason we added this is because this is a new argument that wasn't made in the patent owner response  you know initiating a read which isn't in the claim and scheduled stops instead of successive points substantial evidence supports a fine if i can move on briefly into the data structure argument to  cell i think it's important to recognize what's not disputed here what's not just stupid here is jones teaches a data table with entries in it that store travel data in in the various entries and there's also no dispute and i even contends at the great brief that fourteen that it is and quote unremarkable assertion that a person designing a data table has a choice about whether to store multiple pieces of information in one cell or in separate cells for a brief at fourteen so to the extent i v argues that there's no evidence in this case that you basically have an either or option they've admitted it in the briefing  just the last couple points on the law could is not in dr hills and helps us what is it that made the same argument in the grey brief but unfortunately for them the dr hill said it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art and that the teacher dealt a case i confess that i haven't read it in detail but we're talking about signal processing in that case we're talking about a table that everybody agrees has cells and do you put when you have a truck that's making multiple stops do you put data for one stop in each cell or do you and all together in another cell dr hill testified that it would have been obvious to one school that are reading jones that you would put it in separate cells aboard credit and testimony different guise but it has been presented i'm turning to fed ex's contentions about the base station control unit being able to request the location of a vehicle control unit on demand you know we initially at st note that that was not the basis of the board's final written decision while the board acknowledged the fed ex had presented contentions in that regard at appendix sixteen it ultimately did not invoke that discussion in appendix nineteen in finding that jones purportedly teachers ultimately because the request embodiment in jones is about requesting information about how far the v c u is away from one of these pre determined stops or locations of necessity to an unremarkable assertion that a person designing a data table from scratch has a choice about whether it's for multiple pieces of information in one cell or in separate cells so you know again we disagree that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support that finding even if that were has any further questions i'm prepared to conclude and in that regard i think we simply request that the board reverse the final in decision of obviousness as to claim to want to eleven and twelve thank you thank you council will take the case on revised