and if so granted that misread and should be found that the examiner did not establish a prime especially case of obviousness in the decision should be remanded t examiner for examination in light of a proper reading of this whistle or content based solely on idea that it was common knowledge at the time of the invention claims in the online shopping mall when the customer enters if you will into the site there is a display of available accumulated this campus for each store decides to make a purchase the customer goes to the mall and that navigate through to find the thing that it i thought there were some clauses and i'm not remembering this right that said something like when the customer decides to make a purchase you know did he take a look at the you use and the explanation in set when the customer goes to the home page which is where the the scant information script states when a customer decides to buy goods through a home page of an online shopping mall according to the presidential the number of effective accumulated points of the customer issued by lending support to the idea that it was known that one of customers assigned to buy something it would be the tories they well known to display whatever accumulated discount points that custom have there are two responses that your honor if in fact you look at what happens during the transaction there is not a purchase decision and the time the home screen is it and you can even see what goods there are to problem is you have to review for substantial evidence of why it is and figure thirteen substantial evidence to support what the words because figure thirteen does not show the at this point no purchases that initiate the user hasn't even entered the store this is the only screen on which will the points are displayed and it's before as you go through the sequence any shop is now capable of initiating a purchase and placing an order here for say screwed but the amount of the product to be purchased is put in there's nothing there that displays the available discount o these different categories relating to something about the points they're saying there's a lot of different iterations relating to the points but none of that these different iterations display the actual number of points that you have to negotiate away from the store and leave the store and go back to screen si if you will i think it's one of the reasons why i keep it in fact is not well known it's commonly known it's a patent you can find the search but it's an awkward system that does not have the benefit of the claimed invention in the roth application point in time so why wouldn't it be obvious to have the display for your thirty difference not already there i mean it seems to be kind of trivial to display the total amount of points at the same time you're giving the people a choice to redeem all points or some points or don't know need some points or all points here i don't think it's obvious it would have been done it's interesting to know that i keyed i along with what is cited as the prior art it would be perfectly obvious that macaulay nicholson should conclude that this is well but they don't and they don't because this was not an obvious combination the evidence your honor of the use of this particular feature which gives the fuel perks program particular advantages a competitive context you have evidence of increasing market share even what is the you have the number of customers who are actually choosing to use this feature to secure a full tank of gas so that you come in for any five percent of the people who have the option of using the discount alike not not to because you have significant numbers then citing to maintain and increase the available this can't to the point where they can bring in if you will the largest s u v s they a day that some seven hundred thousand people who over a period of time are taking this option and using the election feature to secure something like two point five million gallons of free gas you have a situation where you have evidence of  to talk about the requirement of the apple team to basically do scans all of the other factors that could have contributed to commercial success there's nothing  invention merely the say that the applicant is required this can't every other factor places an impossible burden on applicants which would basically preclude any applicant well i think  basically said as an example of being able to establish the nexus which is the applicants for the after ten to provide customer service for example where in those surveys the customers would be testifying yes because of the merits of this claimed invention because i love being able to see the display of my accumulated discount points when i am purchasing  wrong what it says is this is this is the program and they like the discount each year and they just can't feature work because this is how the program is set up without the information that permits the fuel purchaser to decide how best to strategize the use of the dis figures you have a code ok that's five to the good number that's on the right hand side it's a good name spaces on the right hand side of it the quantity ok that's ten so then we get down points for the natural reading of that is that displays the amount of points that are in your view referred to an example of what the number would be and it is in the argument basically is because the number for precedes the use of the number one two three down there it's not referring to it's consistent with that kind of constant formatting to get the points for as return as referring to the number of points that are available to the customer to use it please  this is what you know there may be other readings but this is certainly a reasonable theory in the board that's all that the standard of review required the board has a reasonable reading but beyond that there's a lot of other evidence to support the board's findings here which is all the start the transaction when if you're at the initial screen the displays the stores we have the explicit statement in the specification at that point that when the customer desires five goods see the point so you could have a broader slightly broader reading  thirteen is sufficient but beyond that we also have a backup of nicholson which the examiner found and the board adopted examiners findings in its in its pinion so there are some analogies to the injunction context for example apple's simpson case but there's nothing like that here otherwise one could certainly could simply say well my my invention seems to be successful in th office doesn't have the tools to do discovery or do find out what the actual evidence is that would cause a commercial success so we need to rely on applicants to provide it here they relied on first the number of of the amount of fuel that was award the number of households that participate in the program well that's that's fine but has that has nothing to compare with other of loyalty programs or the prior art that that teach many of these limitations coat mccall and nicholson taught essentially in your car but that doesn't mean i use it every time you use the radio but i couldn't care less my car actually had it there needs to be something that for example if they had given customers a lot of testament testimonials that actually said we like can according to them is the display of the total number of points and there's no indication that people are using this feature because of the pre display of home number ones yes or no i think it is better to more important to could simply say about your receipts and choose whether or not to use all of them that was in the prior art that's in chap i call a nicholson or the all of the system and ideas linking gasoline discounts t evidence that they give us we don't know anything we just know that some other stores have some kind of discount program and we know some of the dates that started but we have no i idea based on that edge that supplied whether those other you know what i don't competitors  what the features of their programs are you know whether what they have any kind of discount election they made whether they are how i mean if you are we don't know also even what the what the pricing is which i think is sure hugely significant here could be we really don't have enough evidence to make anything other than just a conjecture as to what this invention does compared to the other commercial embodiment of the prior art that are out there and based on that we there's that's certainly not enough evidence to put to support competitors in its marketplace introduced other discount fuel programs that's paragraph five of the second luko affidavit obviously the fact that there are other competitors out there did not prevent people from continuing to go to the fuel perks program because it is different than the other programs out there and it offers a superior this can program which involves presenting the information providing the election options so that the customer can decide how best to maximize the available this camp with respect to the reasonable are in the store in the on line mall one reading all of the points to read the none of the points three reading some of the points for donate to charity that's your one two three four the four comes