occurs in the human body and that is the whole of the relevant disclosures from those references neither of them shows how a device would recognize  reason or motivation to combine the two parter references or is it your argument that even in combination even if we assume there's a motivation to combine them they still don't give us what we  there's primarily a lack of disclosure and we believe that's the primary issue here but there's also arguably there could be framed a lack of motivation to modify argument  chen just a follow up on judge o'malley's question i heard you say the your primary focus is that there's no actual disclosure but i just wanted to confirm i did not see anything in your briefings here or your briefing to the board that suggested that there would be no motivation to do any kind of combination of the two references that would result in the claims limitation of identifying vestibule ocular movement for the purposes of discerning intent and might is that correct in terms of how i understand what the government appears to argue is that there may be some kind of lack of there may be some kind of motivation to modify the references and fill in the missing limitation and what we are explaining is that there's nothing in the prior art in indicate why identifying a vista view ocular movement would be useful to determine the user's intent and so there would be no motivation to modify the references in that way disclosure of the identification that you are referring to such that it would be required in the prim approach that is reflected in the partially reflected in the coin so there there is a description about measuring the relative head and i have a law cities as described in the claim paragraph two dollars to four dollars if the right and left eye move and this is that eighty eight if the right and left eye move in the same direction for thirty six that's referring to a box of your flow chart and is invested below ocular i am i missing something from your specification fifty one which talks about various components you could use to discern user intent and from paragraph fifty one they conclude among other things contemplates using trackers and had trackers together and you would use and so therefore you would be taking into account head movement while tracking movement and so what the board is an examiner saying is you with therefore understand that when the head is moving while you're trying to track what the eye is targeting yes you would you would take into account vestibule ocular i movement along with tracking psychotic i movements since often times they accompany each other and and then you would use that in ven es eye tracking system to discern user intent and so what is wrong with that line of thinking where in that line of thinking is there something that the board examiner have done that is really under reasonable to the point that it lacks substantial evidence well st i would of yeah well i was looking at paragraph twenty two dollars of kitterman which incorporates by reference several patent application publications and i looked at those and those do in fact  disclose a system that tracks both i movements and head movements so in effect isn't that the case that kitterman by virtue of a corporation by reference does and does disclose a device that is is your best quotable quote for using your head tracker and i tracker together to track movement to discern user intent where where would that be s direct statement about using one or more user input devices together that's at the very beginning of paragraph fifty one dollars on appendix seven hundred dollars and then you go to the bottom where it specifically lays out a head tracker quote the line are you looking at so we're on paragraph fifty one dollars and because it's an application it doesn't have a line but it's the very bottom of the paragraph the last four sentences of paragraph so the entirety of the venable is directed to including inputs from not just trackers and appended paragraph if you want is what the board specifically pointed out because it did discuss explains when your eyes move at a degree that's greater than twenty the head usually follows in a secada so i'd say that's also implicit in the discussion  comment made by public over scandal and also that was emphasized in their reply brief which is the argument that the prior art fails to measure the velocity or that the claims require a velocity first any arguments about measuring velocity we would argue were were raised they were not addressed in the briefing before the board and also not apparent from the opening brief to the  so if you look at the language of the claims it says and again i'm speaking with respect to that identifying limitation that has been emphasized here and the claim say that you identify whether or not the velocity occurs concurrently it does not say that the velocity has to be the same you just have to broadly identify you don't have to measure to broadly identify whether velocity is occurring at the same time so this is similar to the fact that i can go outside and know that two cars are moving at the same time i don't have to know what their velocity is i don't have to measure their velocity broadly according to the claims i just have to know that they're occurring the philosophy is occurring at the same time and so the emphasis today on the velocity has to be the same is simply not supported by the claim of patients in addition to the argument being waved based on the broad language of the claims as i discussed the combination  disclose the fact that the eyes that you use that i track are and i had tracker to identify a movement which involves both the speed and the direction of the head and the eyes  i think the panel has any additional questions i'm prepared to give the rest of my time anything ok that's fine thank you thank you how much time is left for rebuttal mr newman has one minute and thirty seconds ok we'll give you four minutes they didn't mention that that particular portion of the  ocular reflex causes the eyes to roll back in the head to keep gaze on the target and that seems to me to imply that the eyes are cut are compensating for the head motion to the same extent as is necessary for the eyes to keep focusing on the target which sounds like it identifying step are missing here there's no disclosure of using an identified distributor ocular movement to confirm that the user is looking at something and to perform an action in response those are two additional steps in the claims that are not disclose the references and those steps are key because they show how the visitor ocular movement is used in the system to determine user intent there's nothing in the references to that contains any indication of how or why one the skill in the art