my question i clearly the european standard and the american standards are different but you have a system in karachi using the european standard wherein the records of which are not show that an ordinary person can take our right data systems are different and not easily substitutional they are taken can you explain that point a little bit more because i think that's what you need to show is why aren't they can easily substitutable because it doesn't seem to me that it would be that hard for a person of ordinary skill to do it well not the system start with two different kinds of data for the chance so the solution there can that it works in current right for the european system if you were to apply that in those you might say to the us system it won't work it's like trying to put a fifteen inch tires on a car that only takes eighteen inch tires it simply won't work because because the wheel isn't big enough to take entire he do and i assume in this area a person ordinary skill it is is fairly well educated with these kinds of subjects and if they may be two different standard and it may require some programming or a life that that's what a person of ordinary skill to do well my only answer is no because if someone of ordinary skill couldn't do what they would have done they were motivated to do it there was reason to do it and there's money to be made in this business but nobody did it because it was an easy easy your  don't have the design of their product we don't have the product and we don't have the specifications for the product so we are left with his bare bones statement that it could do such thus and such and his declaration if you look at the friend  spect attached to it and the didn't come no spec attached we don't know what these products work but we do know these companies were motivated to try to come up with a solution and did not look still back to jyoti's this question what what is  what is the advantage here what was the particular contribution with the something related to the difficulty of being able to do things your client invention to practice in order to figure out a way and maybe there's something difficult about updating the data tables for the digital broadcasting where you are once you know the answer it doesn't seem so difficult but at the time what happened was there was a transition from so when you say it's merely good and it isn't substitutional because there's nothing to substitute we don't use the european system we don't their system has a different database so you get this not a plug into their system to come up with our system  the european system not to the rest of the com the same thing at the same time dot com said our system won't work in the united states how much clearer connect the we can provide a solution based so someone else must do so machines that would take men to the moon and bring them back alive in one thousand nine hundred did not foreclose the patentability of space vehicles in the twentieth century because knowing the goal isn't the solution that's the point into their commercial products they both recognize the need says the court in the district both recognize the need but i submit to you that there is no proof that either didn't come or seen two of the bigger companies in this country who were motivated to find the answer found the answer so yes in retrospect we all look smart we understand the answer but these people didn't know the ambulance at the relevant before my client got his path art developed by others that's what we have here it's the standard that was adopted by other people applied to prior art developed by other people in k tex case as you pointed out judge chan all they did is change the data table from one format to another and we asked in deposition the one deposition taken in this case a rule thirty six deposition of the inventor representing case tech with there any difference between his claims and the prior art other than the format of the tables he said he didn't know of any that's what we're talking about this suggestion that somehow we have to take the physical products that were made in the prior art and positive them in the court as though that's going to help the court looking at them decide the case makes no sense i will also add this is not of record in the case but it happens in this case in our answers to inter tori's we tendered operating equipment both from k tech and from zenith for inspection by their experts and they never took advantage of that that's their choice the fact that they're deposition doesn't talk about the operating equipment is their fault because they didn't look at the equipment that we had what about their arguments on secondary consideration i'll be happy to go through secondary considerations doesn't look like a district court that they didn't prevent any arguments in their favor the district court did address secondary considerations to the extent simultaneous invention by others is an indication of a factor that would be considered a secondary consideration in any event if you consider a long felt need it can't be long felt need if a standard is adopted in december of ninety seven three months later give a con was busily working on a project to build that and they built the product and offered for sale before their filing date before their proven date of invention that seems pretty clear to me that there was not a long felt need if in a matter of months the project was started pat's entire case is focused on one sentence at the very beginning that's right ok it's focused on one sentence at the very beginning of the project where they says there is no weapon available now in the market we will have to go somewhere else they didn't they specified the product and built it of course there wasn't a product in the marketplace the standard only been adopted three months earlier that's what he's hanging your hat on but i think given time couldn't do it they actually didn't do it and the affidavit evidence in the case  they did it their expert gusen never went out and said i've got one of the devil com products i looked at the one they had tendered to inspect it doesn't work the way they said it does there's none of that there no challenge to the factual underpinnings of the court's decision so we think it's quite clear that that the invention is obvious commercial success in order to more narrowly focus their examinations they require the cases to be divided more frequently than the use of i think we haven't had an opportunity to address that it was first filed in reply brief i would like to first state that the record in the patent office for that most recent issued patent did not have it did not have the declarations of our expert who was in charge of the damage of a comma work the patent office did not have the declaration of the person who is in charge of its conclusions so so the record was different in the patent office the examiner wasn't given the opportunity to review this evidence in the full of baptism before us if not before  court didn't say a word about it from where the other guy to present a very forceful explanation as to why someone skilled in the art would look to cartwright among other things he says there is no motivation that i said before in retrospect it makes seem simple at the time not so much now i also submit to you on the secondaries dutch and racists that they did a count of isis we don't have a solution for the united states even though we have a solution for the guy he says beginning in the mid one nine hundred ninety s and it assembled an engineering team under my supervision to assess possible implementations of a p s the standards of broadcast products by february of ninety nine would be we began working on it and it wasn't until two thousand that they came up with some product a product that no one knows anything about except maybe mr friend because we have no diagram of the product and the best evidence for which we observe just reports that you have to put that in that's the barbwire case we're left with a hindsight view the judge uses lasers a proposition that in retrospect part right shows us how to fix the us system when it doesn't and of a comp said the solutions they came up with the european system