participants i did iron out some of them all of them not all of them so he testified that he handed out a few of them but the problem here is that even if you were to accept that testimony is true and that they were given out to an understanding of electronic trading so the board said yup the people that actually picked up the document were good designers and i want to be very clear on this there is no evidence of that in the jacket at all that any of the members employed who we designers not prints that they cite to the elements just missing and not having that element there one of three kids fails there's also no motivation to combine the and so in that the order report window you have to do multiple actions to send the letter and so combining the idea of steve from one reference to t s p doesn't get you to the invention it's clear that what the board did was the the order entry region because the order entry region is not disclosed and any of the references at all there's no teaching that gets you to the boards for him to send orders from s with respect to the objective evidence in this case the board erred by finding that the objective evidence did not did not outweigh what it found to be a strong case of obviousness this is not a strong case of august t f c doesn't even qualify as prior art and even if it did it's missing a claim element but putting that aside the overwhelming evidence in this case shows that even if they did have all the elements had it i know your expert acclaimed chart that sort of compared it to mt trader and showed how each limitation was present which i think may have overcome that problem but the board said that you couldn't  technically messed up somehow there procedurally are a regulation forty two point six eight three and that therefore they were going to rely on that evidence or something yet i think that was wrong i think it was overly harsh by the board to do that because our pat so what the board will say think that you think it's enough to simply allege that it has all the elements and that entitles you to access you don't think that you have to sort of make any kind of proffering that it has all the evidence and allegation is put the you know the claim chart into our centrally into our pattern of violence which we think is just not required under the rules of the regulations thirty seven c f r section forty two point six three it says exhibits required of evidence consisting of affidavits transcripts must be filed in the form of an exhibit and that the regulation only prohibits a corporation by reference of arguments the overwhelming evidence in this case of an initial skepticism followed by commercial success copy widespread praise and thirty years of practicing pat like never seen this much duty put in train or declarations third party traitor declarations singing the praises of t t s invention and tying the benefits of the evidence not only to end the traitor but also to the claim i know i'm the one that patent system is in real trouble if that's the result do all the cases rise and fall of our finding know whether we're looking at a technological invention or not they do they do all of these and  the four eleven patent when you look at the four eleven patent in terms of the difference the difference in the four a lot from the one thirty two and three zero four there is no meaningful difference between the claims of the four eleven and the one thirty t three or four patents in fact i'd be admitted in the underlying case that was stayed with b g c case that there are quote no appreciable differences between the patents and suit from the perspective of one  the one thirty two three or four and four eleven they all rise and fall together under one a lot which we believe is also true because before all of the claimed as no meaningful differences between the one thirty two and three also well but the board said that this case involved different arguments and different evidence in addition to being different defendants and being a different patent i understand it's a continuation of the spec is identical but the board said this case had different arguments in evidence it's got to be the case that different defendants can come along with different arguments and different evidence and get a redo that's the way our system works i mean it's  a specific technological improvement over the prior art that that's that's the opposite of an abstract idea and now for i be to come to this court now and say no no no no it's all these claims  patent solved problems of visualization before eleventh if you look at the difference you see i'm just so you're saying of the it's the standard fall together there are a lot of differences there's different arguments different evidence different claim limitations and one of the very moment ations we cited in c q g as supporting the eligibility isn't present in this patent and so i guess i'm just sort of hesitating to think that you're all or nothing t mean it's appealing to me trust me but but so i don't know either what to do with this if you look at the four eleven claim and you compared side by side i think the dissenting judge at the board put it past when he said taking out the word static doesn't cast  s that the claims of the four eleven passed our direct to two fundamental economic practice of this new challenge to the substantial evidence underlying that determination so i think it's possible that this case could come out differently than the given to more than two hundred participants that is traders on the exchange participants it's reasonable for the board to have concluded that that was the relevant interested public and i think under no biochar that the public dissemination question is resolved if we can turn to the one of those three issue of the missing element where they had a lot of objective evidence that i dish out of a lot it's not actually the most i've ever seen i would urge  technologies submitted its evidence of nexus but the board did look at each category of secondary disha most importantly consider the nexus question and i think of most relevance here it was in the commercial success it's discussion of the commercial success  category and what the board sounds we pointed out to them was that the n t trader the product that they had to clean charge for the twenty fourteen products if you step through every category of secondary dishes that they rely on whether it's  skepticism praised by others copying and so on all of that evidence relates to the two thousand and four or earlier time period and the board correctly pointed out that they didn't trading technologies didn't put in any evidence about how the twenty fourteen product related to the products that were in the market in the relevant time bill for all of this evidence that they put in a fundamentally fail to create a nexus and this is the place to commercial success correct well if you read their briefs here and if you look at their showing love the only the only nexus showing they made was between put in trial demonstratives that were used by soumik closing to show that it speeded frenched but we still don't know what the the product that they copied ever looked like there's no to no evidence in this record as to what they copied but like of the evidence they intend to rely on for it just didn't dish it is from the factory and that cuts across the board if you read their briefs in this case they point only to evidence about the entry of products from some earlier time period as being supposedly think on that issue the board was just trying to dismiss the evidence by saying well maybe something else cause the success when in reality the only evidence put in the record was evidence of andy traitor and the claim features causing the success same with copying this invention was copied by virtually the entire industry and other evidence that the board ignored is that people even greater than ordinary skill in the are