rejects your characterization they they list that dr seamus designed in touch university courses on design and implementation of user interfaces for web based applications is that technical advisor do an internet search engine was the founder and president of two computer software companies has a ph d in computer science and is a distinguished career professor at carnegie mellon was not a qualif to late one thousand ninety's dr seamus was not working in the field and was actually working as a pet as a pattern so a lot of what you're on is described came afterwards and since since then he certainly has acquired expertise in general computer science knowledge and so forth what we were trying to do was contrast that the same with his lack of expertise in the search engine field with the expertise of the three experts that spring ventures put forth reports on who here was that the claim refers to there's a translator input window which is generated by the translator entity and dr seamus had testified that the translator input window is separate from the browser window and he had also testified that the transit of that window is cause it's one of our points is caused by the transit or entity generated by not the grounds or so the conclusion from that is that he's taking the position  assumption was the underlying assumption that he was saying if that's the case but i don't believe that that underlying assumption was something that could be recently disputed so that it was the case i think that was the point is that whatever that underlying assumption was that the shame was in our during his deposition had a somewhat engaged in some softer story about what it means for two parts of something to be operative a couple to one another and whether someone's head to record in front of me i could talk more about is your honor and your question is so then under paragraph sixty two is assumption and we discussed it at length so i'm not going to repeat it again just under the assumption of paragraph sixty t in order to meet the element of a translator entity and the combination you need to take functionality from belfiore as auto search and search engine and part of the functionality of echo search and combine is that what's happening to become the misleading i i apologize i'm not sure that i agree he said yes he agreed with the underlying assumption so and then he said if that's the case meeting yes he agrees with the assumption and this is the conclusion from that's how we read that what we believe that the lord is has made several errors one of them is really that they haven't provided substantial and sufficient evidence or explanation to justify why they ignored spring ventures evidence this is relates both to the claim construction issues there are three hundred struction issues here as well as the ultimate sort of a lot of issues that  and failed to make any explanation why worry acknowledgement of the evidence or how they reached their conclusion based on that and they're also mistaken about the conclusion so now i'm looking at page three through a poor decision and i'm trying to cut to the chase this is appendix thirty two the same page number and the board is made several whichever conclusions here about what's taught by the prior art which which is not yet to the issue of whether it would have been obvious to combine the reason is stepping back for a moment there's the eco search system was teaching search engine technology search engine technology wasn't even to this day but we at the time producing list of search results as well the experts results he wants to get search results that's the point of doing the search these quotes are in our reefs in their fullest what the board has done here is they say well current teachers are now on about three lines down it says not scoring teaches the ability of limiting or focusing search results not just expanding or diversifying the search area as patton argues and he says accordingly we are not persuaded by patterns argument and current teachers away so what the board is acknowledging kor echo search teachers having search results just having fewer search results or perhaps better search results but limiting the search results but still teaching getting search results when someone used echo search they always got results meaning they got a list of u r l's and links and they got to look at what came and picked one all the experts agreed this is how search engines work this is how everyone expected them to work and nobody contemplated doing otherwise even dr seamus who as a lawyer at the time was consulting with one of the search regional search engine companies which is now defunct well they're all the phone the early but then the board goes on to say a little later on in the page they want to question for a different redirect or redirect feature you directly retrieve the top search result into echo search because a user would desire a redirect feature for multiple search engine results this is really the heart of the decision well this is all the board is saying here is that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine features from the prior art because they would desire it that's not that's just a tautology motivation and desire of the same thing in addition the board has acknowledged that coren still teaches getting search results the board never makes the leap how you would get from something that teaches showing results to something at does not show results instead belfiore simply navigated the user to the web page at it what the user wanted without without showing the user even a list of want not even a list of one no options just the relevant teaching a bill for your simply the user types in some non correct u r l and then just take into still whatever at the browser has determined that it thinks user is looking for the board never makes the leap how you can get from something that teaches having even limited search results but still search results to something that doesn't do that there's no like the echo search one they expected and yet search results and would not think it would be no motivation to to not provide the search results but rather simply to navigate the user to whatever they determined was the top addition has failed to provide the support and knowledge and explain why it didn't consider any of the evidence not once in the discussion of claim one which is the relevant proper forth unit relevant discussion to the board ever acknowledge or mention any of the experts that's wrong ventures perforce they're not they're not even named it's not even mentioned at all if word could have at least said they read the reports and they're wrong we disagree because of something they provided some some rationale so this in our view is very much like other cases that this court has decided like a razor and intellectual ventures google where simply when there is inadequate consideration of the evidence in a board's decision that  very least the board needs to take a nd look at this and realize the court to at least at least remand it to the board to do that but more importantly in our view the board simply fails to bring this to the finish line there's the motivation that the board is me extent that patent owner argues the belfry memories of the search is not operatively coupled to the browser because it is built into the browser that was the assumption the assumption is that two things that are part of the same large entity cannot be operative leak up and so on that assumption he answered then they would not be operative the couple notably on page they're all part of me it makes perfect sense to say that one part of something can be operative the couple into a part of another part of something so he specifically disagrees with the assumption that was  appendix clearly provides its explanation and the basis for this conclusion remember that motivation combined the court has said in regard to it is a sure question of law it's reviewed by this court for substantial evidence and the board amply provides the basis it starts with something on page thirty one dollars that appellant doesn't reference and that is the fact that both belfiore and echo search are directed to the common object of text search and website triva on the internet so that it's not just in the general field of internet searching but specifically searching using text rather than you are else and then translating that to find the appropriate u r l and moreover the board pointed out the fact that they sort of point in the same direction because coren like teaches the desirability of focusing the number of search results and their referencing this is at appendix one thousand six hundred and fifty nine where corn explicitly calls out registration of away from belfiore the board says no actually koren like ways teaches toward focusing the search results it's clearly does not teach redirection to the single top yet but with the board set is that would be the logical extension and of course this is not something that we're we're presupposing in hindsight because belfiore itself specifically discloses that redirection to the top hit and so when it's true that the author of corrine says i kind of like to see my homework likewise mr dr shamos in his deposition said well i personally kind of like to see a number of results so that i can make my own judgment about this that's not the question the question is whether it would have been obvious to take what l fiore's already disclosed as in some circumstances that his ira whole thing which is just take me to the top hit  focus it's only focusing it ten echo search but you know another person would have seen desired redirecting automatically to one and so the the board is explicitly referencing the  evidence it's explicitly referencing the testimony of the experts and i think that given the standard of review there is no question that there is ample substantial evidence to support that finding if the court has no further questions about the other issues on the hill thank you very much the for the record to clarify and that discussion from trying to train myself in that seamus is exactly what i was referring to the disagreement as to whether two things that are components of something can be coupled versus something that's a component being coupled to the entirety of the body again this is i'm characterizing a se ret don't want to waste time with this but that is exactly the point that i was trying to make earlier that seamus and i were having trouble communicating on the that issue your head could be coupled to your arm but right now our position your arm can't be coupled to your body because it's part of your body so part of something can't be coupled to the entirety because it's already in that was sort of the discussion that counsel is referring to from the next page which is what i was trying to describe earlier nothing council said this is disputes the fact that current still was teaching getting search results and all of the experts including ellie's expert acknowledge that that's how this worked at at the time no one mind when dr seamus said this was his preference he's their expert from someone who supposedly consulted with a lot with like us in an early search engine company nobody thought of designing it this way that's our