to provide an explanation for any substantial have to demonstrate motivation is indirect relationships the search for the specific claim the arrangement in punitive negative experimental results now on the rocks papers  so as we look for this when we get to the claim i want to note that we're going to talk about twenty and twenty six three five two patent but the structure in the issues that we're going to discuss right now are found throughout all kinds  person created first numerical representation of the recreation ships in the database and store that for use in computer a search and importantly after one has created this numerical representation of direct relationships and made it available for searching the method requires three additional steps first conduct an analysis of indirect relationships second in body and in a second interval representation and third use that to search so in order to be motivated harms does not provide a benefit to certain one would not be motivated to perform the last three steps of the claim given if they have the first in our awareness and patient direct relationships and indeed if the use of an analysis of indirect effectively harming the search results they would about attained had they just stopped after the first two steps because of this this is a very strong character teaching not perform the method there's other statements in the vox papers to the right and that's correct i mean there's several citations we can find right now through this thousand page consolidated document that talk about how using a b c c c combination seems rather good that there is some performance in a feedback environment so what it seems like the the best you can do is characterize the fox papers as a mixed bag of sorts it's as some it has some experiments that didn't work out so well maybe that's the limitations due to database maybe it's due to the regression analysis but in the end fox is still driving towards sounding at least in various different places optimistic about using these in direct citation relationships at first so therefore why would we say that you know this question of fact that the here today because we're running the show you this is none of those statements not one of them are directed to the fundamental character question of whether an indirect relationship can perform sufficiently or enough to justify it use after the method has already created the first american representation direct relationships none of those statements are directed to those questions so let's look at what those statements actually were we turn and flip the page to page thirteen in my brain some of the statements for example b c is the best one to use was one of the quotes they cited this quote comes from table experiment of people eight point seven which is set forth on page thirteen of the brief him on eight point seven shows a six percent improvement against terms that what it does not do is not directed to the impaired her question of whether the indirect relationships which show a benefit versus direct links a specific specific step the end direct relationships against that subject or so this test does not speak to the parable question of the claim the range of argument they were making indirect relationships must show some kind of benefit to justify the use given the method substantial evidence is evidence that while a reasonable mind would find adequate to support a conclusion the fact that there is a six percent improvement against turns this not allowed any inference that indirect relationships with in fact be ships for you know where in databases for information travel was really such a poisonous failure as you would have us believe and why would components are justified what we see completely is that they're not the experimental results don't bear that out we don't see a use of be seen c c disclosable in the later papers and in direct citation relationships to enhance search for nearly fifteen years after that and then once it gets later shown by a licensee of s or a google that these relationships are meaningful search it literally revolutionized the search industry search and how they had stumbled on this by their analysis of direct links so i believe that what this clearly shows is that not only did fox experiments teach away from it it's fact successful that the industry fox relationships were not the useful under the fox method and then known ways of using them now i also wanted to go back and finish answering the question you put forth to be exact do you think it's so so important  studies found in that in the other parts of the paper clustering is different than search engines for automated organization flacid cation it's not necessarily for searching for those mistakes or even directed the search relevant the only evidence  showed you earlier but more importantly i think this is the most important concept to get here is that everyone of those states every single one of them were directed to search for elements and they were in fact truth does not mean that it's reasonable enough or provides a benefit over just using direct relationships the search imperative question and all that can be true and still not they still don't provide any benefit the only none of those statements none of the tests that they rely on are actually directed to whether in direct relationship to get out perform direct links the only ones directed like this are found on page twelve of recommendation there is nothing in this paper that says you should only use be seen c c the search there is no it's not addressed by the board it's not addressed by the petitioners and i would urge the port to take a look at that argument as well because it has a similar problem having  substantial evidence or explanation  six does not say you will only use the indirect relationships and hanson assert it does not say there will be in a parable benefit it simply says use direct relationships to calculate indirect relationships and then use that for search that's exactly what fox did throughout all of his thesis collections and start papers he used in direct relationships in testing searches and the board below found specifically that that was in fact useful if we turn to j sixteen which is the board's decision the board describes the fox lisa's as describing improving querrey search five five one zero in which fox is describing the fact that he's trying to figure out the best ways using all of this information to improve searches or see whether or not something is going to be improved the board goes on to say again on j sixteen that in particular useful types of bibliographic data are incorporated into a model to test flustering and retrieval functions coming off of searches the board found what fox was doing with bibliographic where more pertinent question is is that an unreasonable reading of the roof and that in their view there's the only reasonable reading the fondest papers together is a says that it simply says that using an indirect relationship may in fact enhanced what's happening if we've gone through the remainder of the papers at j a five six zero five specifically a wrap up of the chapter fox says that the pollution area tests with the two collections indicates that extended factors may significantly aid retrieval performance in a feedback environment thus the extended vector model in chapter six illustrated and partially tested clustering described in seven now appears to be worthwhile for feedback purposes he goes on to consistently talk about how the c and c c may increase value and actually enhance search for example also on j a five six o three in table eight point one three there is a third at twenty nine point seven percent increase in efficiency of searching when b c you gain an improvement for example the line directly above it has only direct citations and only direct citations being term and link yields only twenty seven percent when you add in the indirect even  nine weighting you get an improvement all the way up to twenty nine point seven that indicates that perhaps maybe if we waited even higher in mike he gained something even better one of the other tables for example that shows and a direct improvement  eight point one one one j a five five nine eight in table eight point one one we see in the bottom portion of the table that when indirect b c and c c are added there is a five point six percent increase in the search results when you also then add back in other directs that's only using the indirect so b c and c c yields five point six when you add everything else  characterization and direct links it goes up to twelve point one percent these are not numbers that you can just subtract one off of the other each one has its own additive factor but if you look to just using interacts with term b c there's a five point six percent improvement the wrap up of every single chapter has fox saying that these extended vectors are absolutely worth looking at the data provided is that by using by adding b c and c into the mix you gain improvements simply saying that b c isn't as good as term that's no great surprise term is a direct word when you look for the words in your search when you find the word it's going to be better than just looking for something that's in the bibliography or in a co citation but what the thesis was talking about was not is b c better than term the thesis was talking about what happens when i add these elements when i use in direct links an additive portion of the searching that i'm doing and in fact when i do add in b c and c c additive results are improved and that's exactly what the board below found by saying and citing to the pages of the fox this  unceasing improved the results that i cited to earlier the board therefore had sufficient evidence to find that in fact fox did indicate that using b c in c c was a good thing and in fact further experimentation should be done fox invision specifically did use b c and c c in its documented materials and that can be found at j one two three four nine in which appellant own expert jacobs admits that the c and c c were within that database and so this is not something that was just thrown away never used again the fisa says continue to use it one of ordinary skill in the art would read the conclusion of each chapter is saying that more research is warranted because this appears to yield very good results and the tables include included do in fact show that so there absolutely is substantial evidence in the case of tells us that if there are two ways reasonable ways of reading the evidence involved you must support the finding by the board beloved that's in both the in remove test case and you don't patent cases seven ninety nine think that's right greatly appreciate that there are as such i think what we've shown is that in fact there is no teaching the way that case was also clear that simply because a result is inferior to someone else's perception that does not mandate a teaching away the fact that for example five point six or five point six percent may seem small the sum that it is a positive result whether it's inferior to what someone else wanted it to be does not mean that it warrants not looking at it even to your honor's point about but it's only zero point zero nine zero zero nine weight does not mean that that is a teaching away it's quite the opposite it's saying i absolutely end using it even in a small amount therefore it's warranted to continue looking at it that is something that was in fact useful it's unsupported found that it was useful using those pieces of information there is sufficient evidence to support the ports findings and we believe therefore that the rejection of the claim terms the claims rather should be a because this was a lift to gates and based license and we don't know what the reasoning was it has virtually no wait there is nothing in the record to show google source code nothing in the record to show that google gains any benefit from the claims or even that google performs the claims the simple fact that they took the license may have been simply to get rid of a lawsuit and has nothing to do with whether or not actually practice acclaims and there's no  issue didn't come up in the district court to my knowledge but certainly if this case were ever to come back down to the district court in this case that would be an issue that would be front and center  want one finding start a finding that the subject matter here is not patentable in light of the alice and bill ski and all progeny decisions because here for example throughout the briefing what you see is that the only thing that was claimed to have been missing was the notion of putting this on an electronic database and the board found rightfully that in fact the documents do suggest how do you think we could install one on one project at this point these proceedings i'm honestly not sure that you can i don't have specific support for the notion that you could but when judge mayer asked the question about whether i thought whether or not about one hundred one could come into play where it might be useful i think absolutely of would be but i don't have any support right now for the notion that there is a case that says you can sue us on to pick it up it is however an issue of law and so it stands to reason that the court could pick it out as an issue of law first impression and render decision to around absolutely agree with you but as for the issue before the board before the panel today i do believe that the board had sufficient evidence for everything that it found that specially the notion that this document  support using indirect relationships and because under don't and it's under doma and among others if there are two ways to look at a document or any evidence and one supports the board's decision honor the first thing i want to read the first thing to begin with earlier and that is not one piece of evidence supports using indirect relationships when direct relationships are present she just said there none of those quotes would support using indirect relationships when direct relationships are present the statements of things are good or that the vector space model is useful none of that says to the specific arrangement of claim twenty six where substantial evidence by quite you know we have this issue just through two more appeals invited the point to one result what actually show the indirect relationships have the benefit of a direct relationship where i think we have