every examination for the reasons that no authorized the entity has actually weathered the decision of invalidity for obviousness you a good bishop do you agree with the statement that something would be obvious opinions of that paid legal expert are so heavily laden answer that when you said no i don't waste your time ok i think the qualification is important in this instance like that and then i actually think that is important because you know the first argument you make is that the board can incorporate finding something examiner but the examiner can't incorporate the findings of the expert thanks but that's not really an argument right it's that thing examiner can't incorporate determination has been appropriately made as a matter of law and that's the however in the answer to the question because i'm sure we could have an expert a pain expert whose intent is to destroy the patent come in and actually use the word obvious that's appropriate with knowledge that however when his legal his opinion becomes a legal opinion that goes on and on picture sixteen of  numerous examples but where you have repeated instances of improper legal opinion of obviousness that are so heavily laden in that opinion then that is incorporated by reference without explanation why i asked one of that no yes to start to look the i don't have to dodge that bullet you're under the bullet landscape here and squarely for two reasons number one i can't complain about what the board does until the board does it so i can't wave an argument about what the board does in a deficient manner not providing any analysis where reasoning is sufficient for you to review it but did you argue that the examiner had committed  incorporating these legal conclusion no that leads to the second reason why the boat lands here because in a matter of actual pure legal analysis that is one of the exceptions to the waiver doctrine therefore there is no way for in this instance this court reviews the analysis to know this is not a situation where a waiver can occur in the first instance for the reason that we're complaining about the porters totally were rendered by the expert so it doesn't necessary appear that the examiner was really lying not relying on the legal conclusions and was in fact relying on the experts opinions well and good in that regard your honor the incorporation by reference in itself is improper and so to even get to the level that you're talking about what we have to have is a particular right statement of the reasoning of the examiner in one instance or the board in the other  we were judges and we and whether we do it at the district court level and whether we did it at the trial level or we do it now we often say for all the reasons articulated by the district court are all the reasons articulated by counsel for the defendant we ruled this way  and sometimes that's because we couldn't say it better and we don't have time to say it better because we've got so much else to do so the question is i think i don't think you can say they can never incorporate a reference the question is what did they incorporate right then we have no idea what they cooperated and we have no idea what the reasoning is and therefore it cannot be the standard of sufficiency for a few i'll give you one agree just example that this stark in relief in th backdrop for this argument if you look at the arguments as they relate to claims fifty seven through sixty two and claim sixty five you'll recall that the reasoning in the board at page nineteen of their of ordinary skill in the relevant art has to have knowledge with respect to an exercise system that has supported billeted that has the ability to test the physical activity of an individual purdah may be qualified as a person of ordinary skill in an aspect of the art however he has no basis for rendering a legal opinion if you object as well you would not object to his qualifications because the opinions that he render do not are not sufficient to overcome the elements and elegance of elements in this patent and that's demonstrated all the way through and if i may just in the few minutes that i g just send it all back in time to do it right right that's that is one basis for a reversal here yes you're ok now what if we did that and and all he did was read write the experts conclusions rather than incorporate them by reference would that change that if there is a demonstration of appropriate reasoning and that shows why but here that can't happen let me give you a couple of examples you can't use for example the paulton reference which has  ludicrous going up if you talk about the teller reference and you want to talk about the requirements for infrared or the requirement for the electrical connection to tell or gives you nothing in that regard in fact tell r cannot cannot give you anything and on that particular instance you have contradiction between straw above and their own expert and so are you happy they could write an opinion but it would be based on contradictory evidence that would inferior that senses motion and replacing a g p s device rendering that particular reference in adequate for its intended purpose and this can be done in each and every instance on your d novo review and in each instance your arse for those reasons there should be a reversal in total on all the claims on individual and deeper inspection what you will find is that none the nothing is there it's conspicuous absence cried out in this case for reversal the board should be held to a standard not only where they give a sufficiency of reasoning and explanation for their decision to be held up to public scrutiny but more importantly to allow this court an opportunity to appropriately and properly review what is before us into what about a situation where it could be said that  for us to to review the course decision yes q it of course it's enough to review but in it's likely that a cursory decision and that is a guard that doesn't provide isn't that what this was just was all about whether we have before us sufficient information upon which to review and render a judgment it is an aspect of the decision there are independent basis why all of these claims are not obvious to demonstrate that they are not obvious but the overall and overreaching conclusion that can be reached summarily is that there is no sufficient recently that has been advanced there's been no entity authorized to make a legal conclusion that has done so and it and never was there a better example of this than in this case where they say we discussed this above and they didn't so that's not even that doesn't even meet your standard your honor in this question of a cursory explanation that head could never reach the standard requires a detailed account of the underlying evidence supporting a finding of fact or showing that they have executed their obligations and duties under the law under those circumstances your honor we can't show you where because they didn't explicitly address those what the protests did say is that where we haven't explicitly addressed that argument there was a catch all phrase and they said that where we haven't explicitly addressed an argument we incorporate by reference but they said they did i know there was no doubt there was contradictory they did not do that so i submit to the court that they made a bit of an error in room saying that they had discussed it above to the extent that they didn't just was incorporating something else and you have to go back and figure out what they must have been incorporated how is that an appropriate record a fine point we should conduct and a company or we rather there's there's a multitude of claims here and what you just described occurs in one or two instances a number of the instances of the claims that are addressed here where the board may say we agree with what the examiner did you go to the examiners actual find well i'm i'm interested in the examiner india so if the examiner incorporates a party's argument does that include the underlying prior art references and expert explorations pages and figure out what the examiner was really relying on and then assume the board was entitle to assume the board did the same thing well your honor i i concede that for ease of reference for a review in court like yourself it would be better to prefer a little if it actually gets written out no doubt it's easier because you don't have to go through the process of what was incorporated what was reported but here i don't think it's a mystery i don't think that well it part is the question really how much time and effort with the court of appeals need to go through to ferret out the answer to that mr well again your honor i think that in this particular instance  there's a lot of burden on the council for going back and ferreting out what the board relied upon and then with the exam relied upon because there's two levels of incorporation no doubt but again it is doable counsel bit in the briefs and i is doable and in this particular case you should overheard let me think the other question is it is is it is it fair and when we have a board opinion for example that relies on the examiner examiner analysis and then the examiner says quote segments of expert testimony and you look at them and the expert they're stating legal opinions that that's another issue with with that because it's not additional my ferry now to how much time i have to do the work it's whether the board in the examiner got it right or wrong and they need to state why they reached the result they get in order for me to make that of the expert rendered opinions that would be obvious to make certain combinations but that followed on the heels of detail factual reasons and analysis as to why he believed that and is the judge wall particular combinations he did not say i weighed all the factors and i've come to a legal opinion on that ok we have to believe that examiners and the board knows it's their job to come to the ultimate conclusion of obviousness as a legal principle as it is this court's job to review that done over but we don't do that with hope we do that by looking at the actual decision that they rendered and i would  knowledging the fact that there isn't the board opinion that goes through copies they didn't go through the effort of copying the board of examiners analysis and where the examiner incorporated comments from the requester their actual argument single document that could be given to this court to review that's unfortunate but i don't think it's legal error ok and i think that on these facts would be wrong to reverse that because it is doable you can review the opinion you know what the examiner did because he said i really i thought i relied upon these comments from these pages and this portion of the evidence and i could go through and hide each one of these and demonstrate why they're  their final conclusions and obviously those are supported by the record supported by the others well i appreciate that you can do it i'm sure that we could do it but i do believe this is a job of the reverse because the board could have you know done the job of incorporating physically into a single opinion but let me address some of the individual issues for a second issue of contacts in those in those places purposes put that sensor into a cradle and the cradle communicates to the computer by that electronic communication electronic connection that and the argument that we have here her is that the connection between the sensor in the cradle wasn't explicitly explain disclosed intel or the have contacts electrical contacts the sensor has to talk to the cradle somehow it says teller actually explicit says that the sensor would be put into the cradle the way conventional p d s a or a palm pilot that i think would have done in those palm pilots computers have electrical contacts they have to communicate it's common sense and common sense is supported by the declaration of two sets ph communicated biological contacts i mean that's the level of what we're talking about here is supported by the record there's no question that something like that is  criminal and it does so in any number of conventional ways electrical i r and the record was replete with when is it with you know electrical connections and i are interchangeable so and you will never find that disclosure as it was represented to me there are a lot of different claims here even if we agreed with you that that that it's hard to overcome the absence of discussion as it relates to fifty seven necessary findings must be expressed and i quote with sufficient particularities to enable this court without resort to speculation to understand the reasoning of the board and determine whether it applied  incorporation of records they were pretty just simply pages at a time you have nothing but speculation to help you guess what happened at that level that's speculative and the lack of any specific particularly required for review was simply incorporated by reference at the next level as to these claims reversal is appropriate not only for the reason that there was no sufficient decision but also on the basis of the actual a one zero seven nine column eight lines thirty one to forty seventh and i quote the data collected by sensor device turned may be uploaded by first transfer of the data to personal computer thirty five by means of short range wireless ok thank you