shown nowhere in the prior art this is the case of polaris and seven one nine patent recites a vehicle and it includes various drive and suspension components and then it conclude prosecution the claims were out over the prior art than before the examiner because of that limitation because it wasn't shown anywhere in the prior art was that our theory in the original prosecution it was not but as we pointed out in our brief there was another reference that showed sensually the same thing that there were lying i'm in this case for gongadze but the import thing is done got the and doesn't show the missing limitation either obviously arctic  pathetically there's a primary reference that teaches every single limitation of the claims except the sway bar and where the six wave are is located and then but there is a motivation to have a slave are inserted into that primary reference and let's say there's only two locations where you would but that where would it be obvious to attach that sway bar in either of those positions well this is a situation that really courts have number addressed because we talk a lot art attach it and locate it and i'm asking you what if in my hypothetical there are really only two places to put it right why wouldn't it be that either of those two locations would be an obvious choice because at that point we are using our knowledge of the invention to conclude that there are only two possible places the fact that that  start pushing a hike the hypothetical was there are only two places right and so if there are only two places then the question would be wouldn't either of those two places be an obvious place to put this way for  that hypothetical right in that hypothetical and i feel like i need to say incomplete hypothetical i need more facts what i think in that situation if you're not if you didn't use hindsight to get to that point then i think you have a pretty strong based on appeal on the fact that they don't have prior art showing that location they've got a lot there's lots of prior art many many examples of sway virus in the record dozens of the record probably hundreds that would that aren't in the record none of them show this limitation the fact that there is all these references showing sway bars and other locations supports our own land that they were first of all picking and choosing just to get one is i think weeding that reference especially the one in by name it's got four great chapters you say the engines up front somewhere but this this point of well maybe you could fit an engine i submit your honor first of all we're speculating you know we don't know the size of those components the piece off the sport that says that that drawings aren't to scale we're looking at an off axis angle where it's tough to tell the relative locations of anything so so we're speculating when we talk about size but more importantly we're asking ourselves a hindsight question you don't ask yourself hey i wonder if that space right there could fit an engine unless you already know what our invention is and you're trying to establish whether it's obvious the obvious and that obviousness analysis requires you to know nothing about the invention pick up dunbar theory and just read it and i submit your honour's that nobody just doing that without knowledge of our invention frame i mean if you look at that picture that's what it's illustrated again if if you know what to look for you can conclude that in some of the embodiments he's attaching the radius arm and the sway bar at a location that's generally played with one another but it's only by looking at the figures and only if you know what you're looking for they always talk about these as teachings and this court uses the word teachings a distinction between anticipation and obvious we certainly would not dispute that when you're talking about anticipation does this disclose certain features i think there's are it's fair game as anything else it's there it's there trying to spatial grooves but obviousness is not the same obviousness as we're going to do something that hasn't been done before and we're trying to decide why somebody would be motivated to do that and at that point there is a critical difference between the words and the pictures because the words tell you what's important they tell you what to look for the drawings don't do that unless you know what you're looking for but you in the focusing on things that would never jump around it's a case that you know that makes this interesting distinction between one of two and one of it dealt with exactly this scenario where there was nothing talked about in the reference but the challenger was able to find in the figures it was actually in the same path that they were pointing to one body and saying well look you can see part of the invention over here and and look you can see part of the invention over there so if you take those two things and put it together you end up with a client invention in the supreme court said no they said just essential and i'm paraphrasing at this point but incidentally show issue are limited to single reference obviousness cases finding fault with decisions that film gaps in the prior art with common sense alone without any kind of evidence or reasoned analysis  and that's a far cry from what happened in this case in this case we would contend that there is no missing limitation in the sense that they're talking about it i guess mr vendor at least this morning was more focused on idea of picking and choosing out of the various different illustrations and to come up with the limitation for number one having a sway bar it forward engine think that they are being more demanding clarissa's being more demanding than the law requires in terms of an explicit motivation being been present and written in the patent itself the reason we don't think this is a missing limitation bar and therefore neither one of those teachers the entirety of that claim if there ever been in the prior art i sway bar disclosed for the we are suspension when there's also  that your honor i think that instead of stretching that sway bar and wrapping it all the way around the engine will sooner not you're not actually wrapping it around the engine you're going in the proposed combination would be a straight shot through so you'd have  would want to keep it forward of the engine near the pivot points of the radius arm where which is where it got to just put it in addition to the the general benefits what that does not  forward of the engineer those pivot points that reduces the amount of strain on the sway bar as radius arms are moving through this you move towards the back there's more movement as your up front at the pivot point of the race on there is less and that down bar three a they say is at the rear of the fran and is actually wider than the down portion for which we pointed to but if you look at figures one in two three a is actually quite a that that's why we believe that that rationale supports us but more broadly i think when you're looking at these two references even if you were to put aside that bending stress argument where you have here is you know which has it that you would be motivated to do there's there's disputes about where and what kind of slave arbutus what aren't general have known motivations to implement it and if you do that you would be motivated to implement the configuration in the frame so even if the bending stress arguments but the side were still a motivation to maintain what i got it teaches rather than reengineering it when  teach a sway bar mounted to the frame for the engine but we also need to look at what happens when you move it over to a not a model because that the reasoning there is just as obscure based on things that are they can obtain from studying the drawings knowing what they're looking for but that aren't actually talked about remember with the teacher we're trying to draw as aligning the attachment points of the radius arms  appendix pages have to start at eleven fifty five which is figure five of adults a lot of and you have to notice that this point forty five where the  to figure two and say well you know look it looks like in that figure that same frame element we were talking about l and five is just barely forward of the engine so from that if i if i go through that exercise i to conclude that the radius arm is attached to the frame forward of the engine and that is a hindsight analysis nothing in the reference tells us to do that inspection so not only do we have picking and side i guess the last point i want to make i do want to talk briefly about claims two four and six because those are the ones that say ok now don't have these two elements a lot of attacks the sway bar in this window so that it's for brief because we annotate figure two of an open bottle and what we show is the very narrow window once you've gone through that hindsight analysis we show the very narrow window between where the ra is attached to the frame and the forward plane of the engine so to meet the pending claims to four and six you need to be right in that window if you slide it a little farther back you're under the engine if you slide a little for a further forty you don't meet prior art itself and make an awful incision obviousness and should in fact reverse the board because this is the evidence in this case does not justify holding an invention containing a feature tional no where in the prior