liquid reservoir the sump which content collects the liquid and debris from the road mr lawson this is just let me just interrupt you for a moment a starting at your final point which was the teaching the way point where is the teaching soon you're talking about clement and my understanding of the record is clemen doesn't discuss the payment pavement marking but i don't understand how you get from the failure to discuss something to a teaching the way under our case law the commute claim that to me absolutely chief judge of the board looks only to clemens which is it sounds like is the discussion that we're having right now and i agree cl itself but under the court's case law that's only one of two possible tests and it's the inappropriate test given the record before us under the new tech case which is also repeated recently in the t c l case the correct analysis for a teaching away is when either a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the reference would be discouraged from following a path that is actually set out in the  reference or the alternative test is that a skilled artisan reading the reference would be led in a divergent direction from the path that was taken by the applicant clemens doesn't set out the path that that it's being used for and so looking for a discredit of that path is the inappropriate test that's the fulton test that the board applied under the correct test we would actually look to what the petitioners expert mr booth testified about how skilled artisan reading clemens would view it and his testimony the skilled artisan reading clemens would not be motivated to create a road a road marking removal device the board didn't look to that they didn't consider the evidence of what a skilled artis climate you did with teaching your way i don't rely on any of the language in clemens i rely on the testimony of the petitioners expert and the reason is because under the fulton test clemens would have had to set out a path of roadway and road roadway marking removal and then discredit it for that test to be the appropriate analysis clemens is silent it doesn't set out a test we look for discrediting when the reference itself actually teaches something and council or the or the patent advocate is attempting to argue that even reading what is taught in a reference a skilled artisan would be le in a different direction because of a discrediting here we simply have silence and clemens and the expert testified that a skilled artisan reading it would be led in a different direction when you say it in a different direction would not be motivated to create a roadway removal a roadway marking removal system they would they would look at clemens and look for something else so now there's also the tails into a lot of our motivation to combine arguments where  so it sounds like you are saying that if a reference just not motivate a combination of the achievement of the invention then it teaches a way what i'm saying is that in  most cases there is the issue is going to be that we won't have a record of the petitioner or patten challenger admitting that skilled artisan would go in a different direction reading a reference but i am but i do  agree with the basic premise of your question that the test is if a skilled artisan is reading a reference and upon reading that reference they would go in the dip in a direction divergent from taking what is taken in the challenge patent in this and sixteen dollars patent then it is teaching the way the specific language out and we test is that the test is with the skilled artist and the lead in a direction divergence from the path that was taken by the applicant so there has to be something in the original reference in this case clemens that would leave the skilled artist and towards the path taken in the one hundred and sixteen dollars that we don't have them so this is  conclusion so why clemens doesn't set forth a any path to follow which leads to the direction of the one hundred and sixteen dollars patent it was inappropriate to look for discrediting of a path that's not laid laid out in the reference they didn't apply the correct test which was to look main reason that the board cites for for finding the motivation to combine is that it incorrectly relies on the petitioners expert stating that clemens is a large truck there's no record evidence to support that i from the evidence in fact it's even contradicted by what clement says and the board gets jumps from clemens being large to then having the n o b strike jet added as a secondary vehicle again when  b doesn't teach that it's a secondary vehicle and doesn't teach that you could combine it with anything it's relies soley on the assertions of of the petitioner's expert and then from there it says well clemens reference the pump of clemens with one of the pumps of the n l b strikes other star jet references however by the time the word is already gotten there that rationale makes no sense either because if we've pressure the ultra high pressure water there would be no motivation to then also change clement but i don't i think that also in the general principle this court has has said in many occasions that the general idea to make something better or to increase capabilities is not it is not a motivation that survives substantial evidence w the so if we go back to the motivation i think of the board the board analysis still substantial evidence review on this point for several reasons but most critically because it incorrect y observes that the strike is disclosed as a secondary non self contained vehicle when the reference itself specifically says that it's a self contained and those critics critical  find as well the option of mr bruce's testimony that the strike jet black certain components such as a water tank and its own pump make the combination illogical and on support friend left off which is the fact that the use the truck and the tractor systems in the prior are complete and independent system so one solution is to just have the two types of system for two types of jobs so we're was there at the end here as motivation to combine the two where they operate and function independently in the prior art thank your honor my answer would be that the two systems are complete systems that is true but the common system doesn't have the ability to remove road cutting and so what the board said crediting mr bruce's for this particular aspect of the combination is that a person of skill and we are looking at clement wood and does that answer your question well i guess so but if you have to skimp we separate things and they each operate and perform a separate function i guess you could say that about anything we'll just combining you know you could the two is that small tractor could get into areas that require tight turning radius so there are two reasons why one would want to combine those systems and one is to between cleaning and blasting to remove the strikes where do you find the indication that a vehicle device can be used well i have two answers to that st the the end of the reference talks about two different vehicles the truck and the tractor it doesn't talk about connecting the two but that you could put them together not in the end i'll be referencing no you had a nd i'm sorry just very quickly the nd answer is that we know from the patent   not only did the water getting truck and the water jetting tractor not only were they both commercially available but in the pan itself it says that  blasters appears to have a four wheeled tractor similar to a grass mower which supports a driver and is connected to a prime mover by high pressure lines for delivery of high pressure water to the blast said so talks about a tractor that's connected to a truck which they call a prime mover in the to answer your question just present and i'll be doesn't specifically say you should connect the two but we know that the two things are commercially available and in some way those two things were connected dollars is a picture of the star jet which references the truck and appears to have a connected nd vehicle that is referred to as the water supply which is being asking is is the general concept of dividing the functions between two separate vehicles to the extent that that's some indication of a motivation is is that you do you think ok i will just continue with my earlier ok so as we were discussing a high pressure water jetting systems were already commercially available at the time of filing both in the form of large trucks and tractors and as i said the one hundred and sixteen dollars does quickly discuss commercial version of a tractor connected to a truck and the clemens reference is a water jetting truck that's carrying a large storage tank and the pump and a blast had connected to the front and the strength jet is a water jetting tractor that removes rotor road coatings with a blast head and high pressure water and vacuum pump water blasting does not assert that combining the truck and the tractor are beyond the skill of a person of ordinary skill they are this invention simply rearrange is things that are already in the prior art each component doing the same thing that it did before and like the combination of all the elements and or since blackrock the combination does not add anything to the nature and the quality of the systems to judge if i could address the last point st the contention i hear from my friend is that the invention of the one hundred and sixteen patent simply reordering known components without adding anything to the nature quality of what's being invented i think that the patent itself specifically addresses that the two vehicle system is as to the nature and of the quality because it incorporates aspects of the different systems to create something new if we're to speak in this level of generalization of reordering known components then that would negate pretty much every invention what the prior art had were more cleaning systems of various sizes the in one of the critical inventive concepts here is it took distinct systems and created something new to vehicle system which allows you to have the functionality of the larger system while having the precision of the smaller systems mr locke said what about the point art but it's credited as being something that appears to be a product that is by blasters who was the petitioner in this action if blasters had such a product such a product would have been referenced as prior art and moreover the petitioner mr booz who is the owner of blasters testified that the prior art had never been combined in this way before  so with respect to the two vehicle idea looking back at and they'll be reference i notice on the st page of the references brochure appendix one hundred and eighty seven dollars there is both a large truck a picture of a large truck with a small vehicle in front of it that's connected to the large truck by hoses and so forth and also the strike jet which has a host going from the strike jets seemingly off to some undetermined place but it clearly is connected to something else presumably of a water source  that mobile blast which has its own wheel so that it can be so that it is not running about the ground itself but it's not that's not a separate vehicle on the start it and with regard to the stripe what we see in the orange line that the line for the vacuum recovery which as the reference self pacifically addresses of is an optional recovery system so we don't dispute that there can be this optional vacuum recovery but even with that optional recovery and even with the disclosure on appendix one hundred and eighty nine dollars of a trailer for a water tank we still don't meet the limitations that the one hundred and sixteen patent had and we can even look at the one and it shows the potential of having a trailer behind the prime mover truck as well the critical aspect here is that those trailers are not independently drivable vehicles the way that the one  patent claims the two independent vehicles the large prime mover and the smaller tractor where each are powered to drive independent of the other but they are connected and cooperate together