that remain and the that the red thing at the bottom that was a belt was replaced in the combination with the impact plate mechanism on the right and  order to connect the input plate making them on the right to the upper armature on the left you would use a cable mechanism that both references show a cable mechanism we in our petition we point to the cable in the reference on the right twenty six and then in our reply we also said you could use the taps from the cable on the left and the peach have allowed us to supplement that and allow the lear additional briefing with the outer sheath and an inner cable that moves back and forth the cable on the left had that same boating cable but it had this sort of spring mechanism six b that's stronger at the top and our expert said you could use that cylinder if you want but i wouldn't use it either way the teachings of the come to combine teachings of these references show you have to use a cable that's a transfer remember some cable mechanism and when you connect  i thought was happening with respect to claims for the three of four was that there was a cable mechanism which were patching the configuration on the wife to the configuration on the left hand side since your own experts said that's not something that he would do that that's a good point here are we didn't share our position was it doesn't matter whether you use the green  our expert said personally i wouldn't do it but the issue is how do you connect to the upper arm which are and the reference on the left hand attack and both experts agree that the most common way you connect  and then you know the question and can you give me an example of what that connector might be and his answer was well take the hand brakes on the bicycle it's flared flared and it fits into the mating surface in a bicycle braid that the boeing came in full to if we if we agree configuration work is not part of the conversation then there for our viewers understand is that the cable that's going to connect the right position it's a tab that extends from the cable which is the transfer member and it helps to the operative connection the other tab at the top is how you can connect it to the arm to the date that that was the reasoning that you propose in terms of making that time the nation and why it worked i don't recall the week we got to that level of detail on thing when you didn't have to there was no requirement of how you connected anything so we didn't get to the level of how you would connect it just that it was i purposely connected and i think what the problem is this if you put aside silt we we put those chaps additional taps in the case and the p tap allowed us there was never a discussion of well as the cylinder in the case or not by the people we the first time we heard of that was from the the decision o strange wish we did not because the boards think destruction had nothing to do with strength or explain destruction is a chav is something that extends from one or the other structure up or armature or the or the treasure remember and replace the contraption in the first reference through no methods and will you the likely predictable result are you saying that it's wrong to find that the obvious yes because  because there isn't a problem with the first is that your understanding of obviousness so i think you might understand he said it would depend your honor and it would depend on at least two things one would be highly specific to this case where the primary reference focuses almost entirely on one of the two it to do you sure example one of the future contractions and talks about why it's better than the contraction of the second reference secondary reference in that case i don't think you can say it's obvious to substitute the in the context of the chart subject to the inferior lower structure specification what we've go straight is the highlighted language is the language to describe said that just an arrangement and it describes the fact that in that piston arrangement a very quick motion will cause in response to a that difference and given that the eight to six entire focus is on the structure that enables that difference you can't simply substitute a second structure the connection  said we're just saying it's obvious and trust me i don't think that's that that's not a finding a board made and i don't i don't think that it's proper to even consider that at this juncture because it was an issue unless the court has any other questions  incorrect statement of what the people have ruled on now if you look on appendix eleven of the final written decision the p tab addresses liers arguments against combining references and in fact that's the title of the section of the decision at which starts on page ten and the peter says for the reasons expressed below we are not persuaded by lawyers argument and evidence and then those reasons expressed below carry on for ten pages and includes a detailed analysis of any case factual evidence the references themselves liers evidence as well as cites to dr ken's testimony so and  that ten pages analyzes whether there was a motivation to combine these references and suggestions to combine whether it was proper to combine and it also addresses liers principle of operation intended purpose argument so th case evidence throughout the temptation analysis and found factually that there was no destruction of the principle of operation or the intended purpose of the reasons to combine some of the