different ways to combine it and in fact i think that one of the issues of understand explain to me why what you're saying is different from what i was like ok sorry because i think that there's different ways to combine two references and i think that was what we're looking at here is how did the examiner find other words the rejection examiner says it would be obvious to make a modification to m t r and he to result in a new modified divide and he was doing that based on the teachings of your cheeks so i think the relevant and worry is not just is there some way to combine the two is looking at the actual combination of the examiner posing a obvious i think that thing that's actually at issue is that why wouldn't the combination have been i think the combination would have been amazed because if you look at the language from the actual rejection it doesn't say  you know just because these are physically together doesn't mean they're not hardware independent and i completely agree there i think again it goes back to what is the rejection that the examiner made and i think that what that example shows is that and what the appellate statement breed opening up the box if you will and then placing the hardware independent m c r which you haven't changed or modified in any manner whatsoever into that box and then plot making the exact same cable configuration plug ins that you would if it was keyboard and placing it inside place in a still hardware independent m c r inside of the keyboard divide i think that would be totally fine but instead what with the the modification the obvious actually says was you were going to incorporate  keyboard into this and c r and at that point i think that you're not talking about simply physically locating them together i think you're talking about something more you know kind of a as an example like imagine a some sort of little box box  r that small enough you could do it but i think that's different from incorporating a keyboard into this thing like if you're going to incorporate it into this thing you would end up with working with something like this which i'm not putting up a blackberry which is a similar looking device that has a keyboard integrated or incorporated into it and i think that there's no way to say that this keyboard device incorporated are integrated into this black berry device with hargrave the condenser beauprez this is why this one is the fact that the objective invention a new combination in the fact that you have to sacrifice something from the old doesn't prevent you from creating the new i think if the i'll be happy to present arguments that i can tell you that what i was about hardware independent but that doesn't seem to need to be a key component of your claim that's recited and i guess the question that occurs to me it does teach away from physically incorporating  purpose and that it's awful for the purpose the op didn't set out to design it for i mean for instance if i think gordon if you turn it upside down it was awful for some purpose because that's the whole reason that they wanted to turn it upside down right because to be turned upside down it would have combinations you could make considered as a motivation to combine two things which you're really saying as well the inventor of the one of the original components would want to do that and therefore you can combine i decide against it or to side that it no longer good law or demand that this is not an applicable situation that's understandable but that's kind of the context of what i'm trying to argue that makes it ok thank you say the rest of your time provided we'll give you your honor may it please the court what this case comes down to is whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would of been led away from or would of been discouraged of making the combination of years disclosure of a recording medium for recording inputs into combination why is that relevant someone skilled in the art would have been motivated to make the come combination regardless we believe that it's not and additionally the director vigorously disputes the news goal of hardware independence as actually objection objective and you seem to suggest that the only inquiry here is the relevant uncreative one we've got to focus on is whether the teachers away from the applicant's purposes are objective and if that seems is directly contradicted by all of our motivation combined case law which says any motivation is ok it doesn't have to be the motivation of the applicants so explain to me how you can answer judge doug's question the way you did which seems to me completely inconsistent with what you claim you want me to do from a legal standpoint as described to you pretty quick and the motivation would work for purposes of combining the prior art whether there would have been a reason for the person of ordinary skill to take two pieces of prior art and put them by the appellant so why is it if the references teach a way because if you make this chemical composition the thing is going to explode so don't do it under any circumstances and that is the reason for teaching the way in that case in the prior art is that in the app one can object in making the combination may be different because you came up with some way of making sure it doesn't explode it's not really relevant but it is different to me why would it have to be teacher away from what the african says i don't understand i feel like teaching away is the flipside of motivation to combine and so for me it's hard to imagine one stage but applied to motivational combine and a totally different but the good in teaching a way focuses on again what a person have been discouraged a person of ordinary skill or would have been would he have been led on a path that's a diversion the fact that a particular feature isn't available under certain combination doesn't necessarily amount to a teaching the way that teaching a way cases typically work to give us the priority that if you do it this way it's an operative or its function is seriously degraded or there's some other disadvantage to the combination or modification of so serious that again the ordinary ordinarily skilled artisan would have done it that way the case of in ray gordon that's discussed by appellant as an excellent example the claimed invention there involved a filter filter in the blood flip the french filter upside down it wouldn't function as intended the dirt would have gotten caught in the top and there was no way to drain it gasoline would have gotten caught in the top the invention would have been rendered inoperable in this particular case you know what is this invention about this invention is about being able to record the data that is entered into a computer through a mouse or a keyboard with the additional variation of the recording medium is inserted directly into the input device recreate it another simply having a history for its own sake of everything that's been entered into the computer and the third is using this recording medium as an access device an authorization none of these three objectives are at all inconsistent with the idea of incorporating the recording medium directly into the input device frankly would be a little strange if it were because that is the invention in this particular case another way to think about this case is what does it mean when something is patentable because the prior art teachers away well it really starts out with a lot of concessions from the inventor it basically means all of the features and limitations of the invention are actually disclosed in the prior art often the prior art is analogous or there's some other motivation to combine but it still into a computer and music which is disclosure of incorporating that directly into the input device the invention is really simply nothing more than the than the sum of the prior art and the purported teaching a way there's no barrier that's been overcome in this case or no invention or problem that's been going around in fact hardware independence is particularly defined by appellants in this case a characterization of the director does not accept it if it's accepted as defined by  it's not combining two devices the hardware and the recording device it's not even met in this case the fact that this particular objective isn't even satisfied by the claimed invention isn't even claimed simply underscores the fact that this is this suppose a teaching weighs just about a feature that is not critical to this invention doesn't go to its operability simply isn't important to it and therefore it's not something that would have discouraged the ordinarily skilled artisan from combining the prior art to combine the music which he gives a couple of advantages of record of inserting a recording medium directly into a keyboard one is reduced of vibrations from the operation of the recording medium i believe another one is simply fewer cables of little more statically pleasing and then it's also convenient to the user those three advantages are all stated in music and are all a reason to take the recording medium of the and put it directly inside the computer those three reasons alone apply motivation to combine the art in this case in the panel with the windows me further on this point the director also contends that you stated  twenty you've explained exactly what he means by hardware independence and he means that a device is capable of performing its required tasks regardless of the equipment which is connected so what he means by hardware independence is simply that your recording medium can work with any type of computer or keyboard or whatever can be incorporated in any of us he doesn't mean that it's physically separated and that that's not his own definition of really because actually only point part of his definition are very independent  recording medium is built into the computer so that you him self as he defined as he apparently defines hardware independent simply does not define it in the way that means that the recording medium can't be built into the hardware so even if this case was in re your and you were the applicant in this case and we were looking at the invention from this perspective even you himself doesn't doesn't discourage doesn't seem to be in conflict with the idea of building a recording medium into a into some piece of hardware store are you flipping the device upside down makes it inoperable the filter clauses and and it no longer serves its purpose this is a case where you have this this one additional feature that a applicant may or may not have wanted but again it's a device about recording th data in a way that that's convenient to the user and nothing about incorporating the device into an input device or the computer itself is is inconsistent with that goal of something that undermines what the invention alternately  it is no longer harder independent after the modifications sort of the obvious and the rejection and i think it's exactly age where it no longer serve its purpose its purpose was to accomplish this goal of the goal of hardware independent i don't think that you can really divorce the entire invention from modification it was physically sort of the obvious that actually incorporate a keyboard into n p r i don't see how incorporating a keyboard into an n p r can possibly result in a device where the device itself is hardware independent of the keyboard has been incorporated there