close enough can you hear me clearly i think  make a unique fruit or that contains nothing else but combination of to rule fruit to dry rot fruits that yet the bores have a shelf life of over two years well this is these are individual inventors it's not a fancy big experimental company they did it in their shop in their home they basically did it through trial and error and basically used different combinations until they came up with something that was a winner you know it's easy to have lots of laboratory and bolts of stuff like that if you're a major company but these are two genuine american entrepreneurs they did it in their own well act your the garage and came up with the unique flavors and even the products that have been very very very successful and i my dad are the only products on the market of a completely healthy without preservatives without sugars and without things that are very unhealthy for children and other people to eat they came up with something truly unique and it was very successful we were speculate yes the panel to reverse the patent offices rejection of all of the pending claims of invention and being obvious in light of a combination of seven cited references for the following reasons but instead read the disclosure of the president vention as a teaching tool to combine those seven references which is which is permitted hindsight the claimed result of achieving a the expected they were reached by the trial and error of the inventors and they were not disclosed in the sight of priorities the appellant's believe that the board erred in holding that the fruit or product that is the result of the products claimed in the application is substantially the same as the site of prior art that said bar and therefore the claim characteristics of the fruit or product w it was not what they could as most inventors do what i can tell you i've been a lawyer for forty years most of the time inventors create inventions and improve their own inventions after the fact that's what happened here they had an initial evidence showing that this product was made of pure arrays and concentrates on telling about the bear mountain not through a dried fruits and both the process the end result product was entirely different than what was disclosed in the subject specifically that pulp is not me move from the raw fruit ingredients nor do they teach these specifically acclaimed steps of deicing and the grinding the raw fruit ingredients while the flavor profile of various routes but the fruits are whole fruit not dried fruits all the elements include skin or seeds or included in the weight of one unit of the fruit plus they also don't dilute the size of the fruit in that analysis i believe the examiner again used this as they did a draft but it was simply reading into this far more than the really show the eat by date we showed it to your shelf life has a really restriction that it's  here unsee findings that they primary reference would meet the claim with you it's based on some of the other teachings of the other references i mean is it me is your client in the best position to abut that with actual evidence for example that the primary reference then that state bar doesn't satisfy the claimant nations i don't see any evidence of that kind in  well basically if you look at the claim to that was very specifically drafted and they focused on the combination of apples and cherries apples and pears and apples and apricots those were not in the in the earl document that you saw and you say well if there were any difference we listed a very long list of other fruits that they would realize do work and the answer is substantially improve the product by showing these different fruits and it made a big difference and you're saying well it wouldn't be the same no it's not inherent was otherwise well number one we wouldn't have gone to all this trouble of patent and going to this level also as i mentioned there was no point when there was no discussion was no discussion of the deicing and we go into great detail of the nature of the dice in the granting not only in the independent claim on what for example independent claim eight where we go into a lot of points that are not shown and are not used to someone who doesn't really know how to do this and the key thing as i've mentioned there isn't a competing product on the market for all the ones that were cited all the ones that were shown by the patent office there  a single one that's pure fruit with all the know add it is no sugars no preservatives it has a shelf life that's nutrition and healthy for kids and all the stuff you see on the markets gots preservatives sugars  probably a lot of things you can't even pronounce the words of and so they're very unhealthy michael i came up with a winner and that's basically a key difference from here versus everything else that's out there in the market and i'm happy to take any question that these limitations were in error and we represent we respectfully request that this panel reversed the examiner n p t s finding because findings that the above limitations were inherent is not supported by sufficient evidence they are you that the prior or at two fruits at least one being different and then took the incorrect position that the above an obvious features were inherent without st establishing a prim which requires a finding of motivation to combine the prior or the doctrine of inheritance should not be applied absent a clearly expressed motivation or reason at to come that combine is not removed imports a compositional difference that or that and that that argument has been waived i very respectfully disagree with that the argument has not been waived in loans things that are ration which we've already  cited on pages forty one of our appeal brief beginning on line sixteen refrigerator referring to paragraph all wall all one to zero from pages thirty to thirty one of the pat did raise it to the p t a have pointed that one it was raised during the prosecution too it was raised in the peta and so the government's saying well you didn't raise it during your argument to the peta is simply not a correct statement talking about basically ignored and incorrectly said no it is you waived that was you didn't you didn't raise it that's what the solicitor general said and i respectfully point out that she is not correct we did raise it in the text and in our appeal