to demonstrate the operability of the proposed combination of dog and hochstein rather than just showing that a person having ordinary skill in the art would perceive or raise reasonable expectation of success alternatively the bord proposed combinations and not open at least to the reason must occasion of success in the overall combination especially when doctors in acknowledge that all other modifications could be made in the combination opposed by petitioner and finds them to be inoperable so they did make a finding that it wasn't bodily incorporated that was they were quoting from the argument i think hearing  and when when the ford says it refers to the fact that that philips had argued that it wasn't making a bodily incorporate incorporation argument but it actually didn't do the analysis examples of the two different ways that one of ordinary skill in the art would approach this problem given the teachings of obscene given that you've given that huge and of ogden and so you would start with these these umination apparatus and so boggan is teaching you specifically in the to the six a in the six b environments is saying you have to actually change circuitry in order to deal with two different kinds talking about was if you were trying to put one into the other right without anything else right would that be that precise only incorporation work or not that's what that's what the sum total of doctors eans several paragraphs the work but nonfunctional circuit so i think broadcom is a very different case than this one at the outset it was a single reference obviousness where there was no motivation to divine there was no reason why because as it says there were secondary consideration there were there all but one but a significant difference between the prior art in that case and the asserted patent and there was nothing there was no suggestion that you could modify it in any way right and so there were the court was dealing with some hypothetical ok if there was some suggestion of of how to actually change the prior art there right would it would have accomplished the purpose actually wasn't that a thing was an skill in the art looking at those three implementations among the two references right i would understand that you're just using standard circuit element right to match the different electrical characteristics of the particular load that you're that you're trying to drive and that's that's a teaching that comes right out of baghdad and so that's that's where that's why we rested on the the evidence we put our petition that's thing there's explanation of the two different references and the combinations that you propose and again the criticisms leveled by doctors saying only go towards bottling corporation that is not enough to defeat that reasonable expectation of success in the kind of if there's evidence some there should be some perception of success not that you absolutely have to guarantee success and not that a person of ordinary skill in the art wouldn't have to do more work in the  found that there was an expectation of success so the mere fact that the specific combination without more doesn't operate doesn't deprive the reasonable expectation of success in the but they do say that in the next paragraph but in terms of in terms of whether they actually held that this was not the only corporation in the in the hearing transcript it's actually being quoted in that little passage it's just a statement of counsel look this is not what we're arguing but the question is again ok that's what they said that's fine but the question is when you actually look at the at the paragraphs that  requirement of a reasonable expectation of success it didn't require certainty or actual success or absolutely having to guarantee success as wax says invariably without citation references to operability are also unproblematic if the combination is an then you wouldn't expect success from it put another way if the it's a requirement of the claims here that the apparatus actually work the controller has to be able to provide power to the l e d based on the power related signal and if the proposed say these two can't be bodily incorporated and that and have that be the end of employers so what you're response are our response judge analogy is just what we said to the board at the oral hearing and what the board found which is that was what we were arguing we were responding to the specific arguments components out of bogdan and put the pox in components in and we responded to those and said there are multiple unclear stepsister how this would be done how it would work mr ting were never explained them now on appeal lack is trying to argue well there would be further steps that could be taken and they were all well within the reach of a skilled artisan but that is far more than they ever gave the board they didn't say anything like that in their reply they didn't say anything like that at the oral hearing about that understands testimony dr saying our expert yes well he said he pointed out that there were multiple things that weren't explained in mr ting was proposed combinations he certainly didn't say what those modifications could be because he didn't know what mr taylor had mind we of course don't have the burden it's a petitioner's burden all the way along it was incumbent upon them to respond to dr scenes criticisms with some evidence or at least point the board to what was already in the record to say this is where we've explained why our proposed modifications to the prior art would be reasonably expected to succeed in petitioner has not shown by preponderance of the evidence a reasonable expectation of success for the modifications to combine wagner hochstein i think that's all they needed to do given that the petitioner whack has the burden of proving a reasonable expectation of success we have no burden disprove it it's not like we need to show him possibility we simply need to show that they failed to carry their burden and then they have an opportunity to reply which they squandered the all they sell all they did was they made this bottling corporation argument which the board rejected and they haven't appealed because it was clearly correct as the board found that we were simply responding to the very combinations and modifications that they had put in there which shown that they weren't sufficient to show a reasonable expectation of success and they had nothing in response the court has  the material from the reply and the hearing that wacko's chooses to put before you it's one page from the reply below it's i believe two pages from the transcript of the oral hearing it says nothing about any of the stuff that now figures in wax advocacy on appeal trying to back fill the points that their expert and even attorney are simply not made so we would respectfully submit that there is no need to go into i'm happy to address any questions the court has about the technical points of practice now try to put before the court that it did not just to respond to a couple points my friend started argument he again tried to talk the operability question to the if it's not a bill then how can you expect success from it which is again a fair question if you're not limited to the comment that we haven't appealed on the bottom the incorporation i think that's kind of the center point of the legal error and just focusing on what specifically was required that the board was requiring from from