amend on the basis that the patent holder and not demonstrated the substitute claims to be that this court should reverse that decision for any of three reasons first the board was then operating law that lead to the wrong conclusion first and foremost to the board failed to consider the substitute claims as a whole the substitution plan as eleven steps in and analyzing the subject to claim the board only looked at the new limitations the board only looked at the new limitations and applied some new are the board never looked at the substitute claim as a whole nor did the board ever look at the prior art combination as a whole that was an  even if you were to disregard that and just focus on the new limitations and the substitute claim and look at the new art that was applied to the subsidy plan which has two references the board failed to establish the motivation to combine those two no references p m c p m c raised this issue in a request for a hearing to give the board an opportunity to to clarify the record and to resolve that error and the board came back and simply responded that the two new references collectively disclose the pieces of the limitations new limitations in the claim the board did not pad known are made the argument that these references could not be combined without substantial modification including replacement or reconfiguration of many of the compound us so this was an that word has to come up with every possible argument considerate they consider the arguments that you can make too and the question is did you make the argument then that you were coming here making i believe we made the argument t is more things and felt sending and receiving data which we clearly found ineligible for why are the amended claims also ineligible with all with all due respect the premise that the new limitations are routine  no sir it is not in that bar that is not in the prior are amazon and the board cited to some sections and the prior art and when you go to those sections you see that those two things a user input and then the processing of the message to effectuate a channel change are different features different functions in the prior art and the problem is we look at the plane limitation as a whole we look at plain fifty six and it refers to processing receiving a message over first communication channel responses to said use a reply and then going on to process that to change to change channels comes when you run to you about a time continue  was that auto tuning was not known that it was not obvious and it would have been no motivation to use auto tuning generally just idea for receiving a signal and having to change channels no opposition to that motion amazon explain that a few pages thirty six to thirty eight of the court fish and fish and that discussion this is where the board rejects their arguments as to no more me writing to me i get that it's a little problematic for me was crediting the testimony of amazon's expert and amazon's experts specifically address the motivation to combine and that's in the appendix at fifty nine seventeen paragraph one fifty two of the worshiper declaration he's talking about specific combinations of prior references explaining what the motivation to combine would have been and one of them was convenience obviously this is taking a process where people used to have to change channels just doing it automatically so one of the motivations to implement this is the convenience factor does it automatically but he also goes on and provides a few other reasons why a person is going are would have been motivated increasing security and some other issues in the board accepted that and specifically stated that it was crediting his testimony and rejecting pm sees experts testimony and it can't be original claims were directed to the abstract idea of promoting programming and delivering it over a generic now all they have done now to say that programming is being received on a separate channel doesn't make the claim any less abstract  sixty seven where this court specifically addressed that issue and how that generally doesn't prevent this court from affirming a poor decision on one of one it's an alternative ground where you can run on what is generally a question of law correct what do those cases they found where the pantie admits that it was well known that there can't be a factor of actual issue here so they submitted a declaration from their expert but that can't supersede the admissions in the claim from the admissions they made about the prior column forty three lines fifty three to sixty and the tuner that's being auto tuned in this conventional manner is a conventional auto tuner that's well known in the art that's what the specifications states that's in the appendix at nine sixty three c the appendix sixty six ninety one to ninety two where their expert agreed that what this patent is describing is off the shelf components with each component being used going to conventional manner and there's a specification confirms that in the embodiment that this claim is supposed to be about it's just a few program it's a cooking show it's promoting a recipe doesn't get any more abstract than that i think this is a classic case the trick software case and there's one other unpublished decision that the step to inquiry is at its core a factual inquiry now there may be instances where there is no dispute of material fact as to whether something the operations resigned in the claim or routine conventional and or well understood in this instance amazon in  processing message but amazon never analyzes the claim limitation they just do just plucking words and then saying while this is well known you know the specification says that a receiver as well no on ok very very quickly and appendix forty seven through forty eight we have the board's decision on t m c is request for a hearing where p m c specifically raise the issue of bottoms up retuning and if the prior art did not disclose that and that there have been no showing of motivation in the this is the board's answer or as answer as thus we concluded that the combination of campbell and for a carwash teach teachers the