possesses the necessary qualifications and needs and they say that time flies when you're having fun and i have also heard say that it flies when you work hard if the latter is a case in this past year it must have been a blur for you because you work ethic and that work ethic has brought excellent product for the court and for my chambers i've noticed that you learn the respect of have managed to proffer that leather gloves made from a roofed or corrugated waterproof glove liner glued to an outer blood only for the purpose of preventing the glove from coming apart read on these claims or any of the claims directed in your terms of the class directed to the water pocket conditional cronic you speak of i believe that the  implied in the preamble and in the concept of waterproofing whether it's implied that it's going to prevent water front from going through and saturating on the inside that's that's what the background of the invention is about that's what the that's what the farm i don't believe that we argued for that as part of the claim construction of process for waterproofing letter i believe that if that was part of the claim construction of directly pressing that was sop for the people that were going to argue that directly pr y should be construed as a limited water question that construction of directly pressing that was stopped before that peach had was that there had to be direct contact and it had it had to cover in contact which will then understand design for cotton socks but no evidence or even a rationale was provided to the piece had to this proposition and i'd like to start by addressing this latter point this case is an example of the peter failing to a legit reason was sufficient that peter has entire explanation is as follows addition are also provided a rational underpinning for combining the disclosures of scott and he which provide guidance for the density  that is precisely what k s are and this court's precedents counsel against using the own inventors invention as a blueprint to the solution jock says now for the first time in its appeal briefs tried to articulate a motivation to combine that explanation it says it's common sense but that argument was never raised before the kitab in any form and i word searched the entire record on appeal the word common sense never appears anywhere common knowledge common anything the people have never had the opportunity to review whether it would in fact have been common sense in buying these references there are numerous reasons why it would not have been but that argument was raised for the first time on appeal no evidence regarding common sense was submitted to the p tab this  has recently emphasized that the pita must articulate a reason why a person having ordinary skill in the art would combine the prior art references in the new face of case it is not adequate to summarize and reject arguments without explaining which are quote nothing more than conclusory statements that a person having ordinary skill only are would have been motivated to combine prior art references even if the p tat had relied on common sense which it did not that would not be enough absent some articulated rationale of finding that a combination of prior it would have been common sense or intuitive is no different than merely stating the combination would have been obvious that's what this court said in the van os case now do you have any argument if i interpret poor statement that petitioner provided a rational underpinning for making this it was either invasive or in the very last case it is not enough to simply adopt and rubber stamp that piece of itself has to articulate its own reasoning so that this court can review that reasoning on page twelve for example of the board of opinion good reason it's articulated by the petitioner and then just a couple of pages later board my impression adopts the petitioner's rationale for making this combination so why isn't that sufficient i mean whether it's right or not but i don't know but why isn't your argument seems to be more procedural than substantive in that you're saying the board didn't articulate a motivation to combine and then that it's required to do that and that's something i agree with  teaches everything other than they big amount of dots and that requires optimisation and that it points to a different pattern hidden that that has dots but it never explains why it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art looking at fortan to have adopted the number of dots and hidden particularly when that pattern relates to cotton socks a different invention and substantial evidence deference does have to be given your honor but again i think here coming through the petition and the world argument i don't think that any rational reason for combining this art has been provide that case if i interpret the sentence on page fifteen of the board's opinion as an adopting the petitioners argument i believe that one difference with a new case of case is that evidence was actually submitted in that case in the form of expert testimony but no such evidence was submitted here i'd like which is going to be applied whether it's in unison it does stretchy on the membrane to break but for the actually specifically says that it's process is not only have two people to socks it's also applicable to range of i thought it was odd that out right now says hate this so much different than thorton that one would not apply the teachings of hate into thorton because in their opening brief they said they were very construction were no let's say that we believe we agree that they claim element is because water questions the water question prong when your arguments change to respect to the motivation to combine different preferences no i that was not argued as pointed out earlier that was not argued is part of clean construction before the p t and stead that was a proposed limitation and they proposed amendment that was rejected and not appealed and what the  said is that at best even if we consider the claims to preclude formation of a water cushion and to require complete and continuous contact between the dots that would only bring in the drisc is in the section of the p tabs written opinion relating to the rejection of their amendment because that's where it was raised floats around page four twenty five to twenty seven they said even if you would accept that water cushion and complete and continuous contact or even at best that would only bring driscoll into play because stressful teaches using dots to apply to flat articles together with the memory of being directly applied to the other fabric can be incorporated into into that but that the leather glove manufacture is a separate process where you first build the internal glove liner and then insert it into the leather glove the  dots that would be used for that purpose would inherently be different than dots used in other purposes for the reasons that are explained in our brief the glove liner will shrink and the only purpose of gluing the glove liner to the that prevents water from getting to your hand indeed the point about scott first of all scott has nothing to do with whether in fact scott doesn't have anything to do with the that you would apply and whether scott has to do with the density that you would put on a waterproof membrane in order to prevent horrors the pores in the member the micro cords in the membrane from being caught by the glue that has nothing to do with the and it specifically says in scott that it relates to fabric so there's nothing in scott that teaches the density that you would apply the density of dots that you would apply in putting a membrane on the leather itself this is the first invention that i'm other than this idea of optimization which i don't think is a rationale that's a that's a reason searching for a rationale that we need to optimize but why would you pick why would somebody  cases papers very quickly on directly pressing and again i think this is what covered in the briefs but the context of the claims here is building a waterproof leather sheet that can be incorporated into products like shoes without water cushions and somehow we've gotten to the point where it corrugated ro liner that it intentionally has air pockets one specifically says that there's a benefit of those air pockets they are there to provide insulation so you use of the term water pushing to get them and the way i