in fact on the substantial evidence issue when you look at the evidence that the board cites or the citations they use in their brief they cite to petitioners papers whether it be the petition itself or the reply and if you go to the pages that the board cites there's no there because petitioner didn't submit and if they rely in some cases on the actual teachings of the eight one four pattern itself which we believe constitutes impermissible hindsight particularly when you have to look at the actual evidence and teachings disclosures and with the disclosures that absolutely are out of the background of the eight one four patent says at the time of the invention and the board acknowledged there were two types of gaming machines there were video gaming machines there were mechanical gaming machines like a slot machine type there are different that the background goes to great lengths to talk about the that these require custom cabinets each has to be custom separately made they have different components and because of that the rich stream lee expensive in fact other than being gaming machines they share virtually nothing in common and this is set forth in column one for example lines thirty eight to forty one lines forty five to forty eight and forty six through fifty with respect to the video game types at the time they took up a lot of space they needed significant depth to be able to accommodate the c r t video screens that were used at that point in time so they took up valuable space on the gaming floor it wasn't until the eight one four patent came along and solved both of these problems as a video game it took a flat panel display and mounted it to the inner surface of the door it which allowed the machine to be made significantly less depth which allowed more of these to be placed on the casino floor which is part of the reason of the extensive weiss and saying that the board found its of to virtually every competitor in the industry so let's talk about round one which is frail it frale is a non video type machine of a non video type set forth in the background it has a display but has the board find it's usually truly one way not a serious determination we're looking at combining subtle references honor is the board said it be obvious to take a video display and substitute it for the non video display in the non video gaming machine basically transforming what was is the background of the  patent sets forth transforming electronic gaming machine that is custom made differently at the outset you're choosing one of two machines which the background teachers are two separate paths in the board set it would be obvious to take a video display and substitute it for a non video display and what's the result going to be you're still going to have a mechanical game with a video do you have the window and door but your honor i would suggest that that's hindsight and the reason being is if the motivation is to provide a non video game that was selected at the beginning to not be a video game it's not like it's today when video games render duce that suddenly the election the non video games have gone away they're still there there's two separate like markets you've got the non video the slot machines and then you've on the commercial success it did but what the board did find is that it credited that the eight one four patent had been licensed to virtually the entire industry in vs are doesn't doesn't challenge this that it says that abort but it was in terms of where that took them because didn't they on just one of them was specific to the eight fourteen patent and so yes there are licenses but we don't know the breath of those licenses and how much of a hard point he like i think what the but what the board said your honor is all the licenses were not exclusively for the one for patents so all of the licenses license the a one for patton but it also licensed in a different that and so they said it was difficult to apportion but nonetheless in connection with the declaration of mr cook because if you come if the license covers multiple patents how do you if you put forth any evidence happen was that there was no evidence put forth the value one versus the the other but the board found and credited that this was evidence that needs to beit be taken into account when evaluating the issue of obvious what it did find they found in this case they believed it was a strong case of obviousness and so because there wasn't a nexus that wasn't sufficient to overcome but as we've set forth in our brief we don't think that there's any evidence of obviousness but certainly not strong because there is no testimony from a person of ordinary skill in the art there's no expressed motivation in any of the references to make to purported modifications or combinations that they just scott's so to the extent that there's any obvious we of law predicated on the underlying facts and if one of the underlying facts is the commercial success and that fact has to be taken into when you're analyzing to determine whether or not there's the ultimate question of obviousness is a matter of law would like to jump to this second ground which is runty and run see what the board essential brunch is a table top what the board found is that runty was obvious because what we're challenging is the board found that if you substituted a flat panel display for the c r t display and this plane runty is attached horizontally the tabletop the board found that it would be obvious if you substituted that that you could de reduced depth dimension but the reduced depth dimension that the board was focusing on was height if you decrease and change in substitute an l c d display which we've got as we set forth in our brief we don't think it's proper but substitute it for playmate and also claim for is predicated on the cabinet having a front back in two sides and it says that the cabinet has a whip from said first time from said first second side which exceeds the depth of said cabinet from said front to back so what the claim is concerned about is the depth of the device from front to back because the door is on the front of the device when you open the door and allows access to the interior and it's decreasing that depth front to back as compared to the wet or didn't address that the board ignored that claim language when it said that when you decrease the height of runty they and petitioner agree that that the top of runty is the top and so it's got to the top bottom sides no one has made the position that the top of runty is the front because it it just can't be the  side i'd also like to address claim nine of run today on the board erred and also finding claim nine obvious claim nine requires a bracket mounted to the door and it requires that the bracket have a horizontal support structure on which the lower edge of the display rests and it said the claim specifically says that the lower edge of the display rests on the spread good when the display is in the declaration of mr clarke applies specifically to claims one in eight that talks about the the feature that customers were specifically requesting inspecting and why they felt that they needed to enter its reply it merely said it was obvious yet the board still found that one t taught a bracket having a horizontal support because when the run to live was raised horizontal surface as is required by the clamp whereas if you look at the it one for pat when the door is on the front as the claim requires claim made and it is moved from an open position to a close position the display is always resting on the horizontal support surface which is not present and run to the board erred in that regard and or ignoring that limitation i think an appropriate place to start is the standard of review particularly and respect to every single argument i believe raised by opponents is under the substantial evidence standard at a minimum and the reason i say at a minimum is because the testimony of references for your honor there's a there are a couple layers to that first of all is that the board didn't just say it was de minimus mr cook who that is their sole support of any sort of background on these licenses mr cook in the value of the machine to which it won for his licensing and that i think your honor is very important because the thing that you're looking for with nexus is some sort of independent deposition and his declaration this is specifically for bally if you look at our g t which mr cook represents establishes that ert represents approximately seventy five percent of the market or somewhere in that range the numbers go way up you're talking a hundred maybe a hundred thousand gaming machines per year at twenty grand a piece that's twenty million dollars per year so if you want to look at the lump sum payment of one point six million dollars over twenty year span of this patent that is the many months that's four hundred million dollars versus one point six it's barely a percent and i believe it's well less than the cost of any reasonable pat and again as the piece have correctly notes there were no specifically constructions argued by either party on this front but i do believe that the p t at least implicitly recognized that the top of mt is the front of the eight one four and that's is where the display goes and that's where the display is and run to it makes a great deal of sense i believe and they were in their reply brief on appeal they try to argue that side thirty two of runty is the front which doesn't make much sense to me because randy has a hex on hexagonal shape for multiple players around the table it's kind of arbitrary that they pick one because that means somebody is playing from the back and that makes no sense if you say the top of runty is the front of the a one four patent it all makes sense that's where the display is that's where everybody's looking and you meet it one for independent climbs very easily i believe that in general their arguments are their obviousness arguments are dated in that in many instances it would seem that mr earth would prefer that chaos are didn't exist and a number of the cases are precarious are and their arguments are pretty chaos or we do not require an expert for i'd be ours it's very well established especially with simple words such as this and there's no need for an express teaching suggestion or motivation in the art and we have very well documented evidence and very strong evidence of the motivation here l c d s had recently come out they were known in the art as mr arts admitted at the trial before the p t and they had well known benefit the one for patent expressly talks about the benefits of the l c d which they not did not invent they did not even invent the use of l c d s in a gaming machine we get to rely upon that their statement of the prior art and what the benefits of known components in the prior are achieved by their inclusion we get to rely on that and that's what we did live on it provides a very strong motivation to go straight from fraley runty or smith directly to the a one for one and war argued for that purpose dollars in terms of royalty that was given based on what the licenses are that are in the record that doesn't include whatever subsequent royalty payments they would have been made for the terms of wiseman's agreement and as to the issue with runts you refer to the court to  the petition filed below and this is appendix six seven four talking about claim five which relates to whether or not it relates to the the door being on the front of the cabinet it would also apply with respect to claim made says runty discloses that the door is located at the at the top of the cabinet this is their quote the first sentence with respect to claim five it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art that the device could be oriented in the traditional fashion i e as an upright consul but that's directly against the teachings of runty that says our table top is against is different than a console because people can't keep their drinks there and would have to leave their belongings and go to the consul i see my time is up and i make one more point yet and that is as to run to the board didn't address that last point despite petitioner conceding that runty has a top in the dept this from top to bottom that's all the board found it didn't go any further with respect to the language of the claim and think you're actually think both sides