good morning your honor may please the court this case involves an error by the patent office by the board who erred by not measuring the reasonable expectation of success against the claimed invention first with respect to grounds twelve and five on to detail separate independent teachings found in the prior art or otherwise known to persons of skill which motivated the addition of cameras to the voice system at various locations relative to the image sides of the centerline how those limitations were met at least in one instance without requiring a rear camera in other words and feels petition argues that these claim limitations were maps to cameras other than the cameras located behind the subject but the board never left declared that including the rear camera capable of imaging the subject from the rear was necessary and was necessary to render the claims obvious this is an error that the court here refused to know the board also erred by requiring that can fields proposed configurations successfully image portions of the subject that were in obstruction of portions of the image subject once again the board failed to measure the reasonable expectation of success against the claimed invention which expressly reciting that only a portion of the subject  would satisfy the claim limitations in the cameras one dollar and two dollars that is the camera supposedly obscured by the wall on necessary to meet the claim that is correct your honor in in connection with an interpretation offer an argument that cameras one dollar and two dollars could be incorporated into void if it was necessary for those cameras to be opposite a center line which was shown in green but as you point out your was required to stab with a reasonable expectation of success for cameras that were located behind the individual if if the center line is indeed the red line is drawn from front to back in the in the instance improperly ignored arguments in the petition for why a person of ordinary skill in the yard would further multiply the number of cameras used that motivation was clearly spelled out in the petition your honour's that the number of cameras increase in the number of cameras leads to an increase in the resolution as each bit the total system of pain from the from the from the individual because each camera if multiplied more cameras can focus on smaller areas of the body and therefore len the entirety of their c c d arrays that smaller area of the body and therefore achieve more image capture greater resolution that was clearly spelled out in the petition the board further held that again finding that a wall would have obscured any rear cameras  indicated that field had failed to establish a reasonable expectation of success again in this particular instance we acknowledge that in the mappings we made for indicated that there was evidence of a record declared by the board to be of record evidence of record as to how simple it would be to remove any such wall should it actually be disclosed and to retain the sliders voice describes or otherwise make modifications to retain those and then modify those modifications would have been within the skill of the art and the board credited testimony an institution indicated it was of record declared that the trial would proceed on that basis the patent owner in this patent on a response did not object to that evidence in fact substance substantively and nor did it file a motion to exclude that evidence as it was required to do to preserve any objections to it and it was only after the trial in this matter that the board abruptly it represented an improper incorporation by reference from the expert declaration and our argument here your honour's is that abrupt midstream change after the trial was conducted was an arbitrary sufficient evidence here that the board's conclusions about reasonable expectations of success are sufficient as they are unsupported by the record in fact the record supports the opposite and therefore we think that it is appropriate to reverse the decisions with respect to those grounds ok and he had any questions at this point for m we see these cameras three hundred and forty five and six dollars if those were incorporated and that would satisfy the claim right because the claim requires only imaging a portion of the body question on whether there's a wall in void that would have skewer cameras one and two and yet you've agreed and i think that's right the cameras one dollar and two dollars aren't required to satisfy the claim limitations so whether there's a cooperate multiple cameras hurley ok so he's talking about the combination in the single series presents it was incorporating the multiple cameras of hurley no where in the petitioner in the supporting declaration did they set forth evidence or argument that the proposed combination was including less than all of the multiple cameras in hurley ok that may be but if you incorporate all the cameras in hurley reasonable likelihood of success i'm sorry a reasonable expectation of achieving what's in the clay ok so with respect to the st point your honor the board again took canfield at its word as it was presented in the position and fifty nine immediately following the theory of obviousness they then set forth various rationales for why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make that combination and the board fully considered out about voice rear wall would have blocked the view of two rear facing cameras and then they go on to say voice horizontally adjustable sliders would have partially blocked the views of the remaining cameras and that was the significant seventy four we can see that the horizontally adjustable sliders they project outwardly from the rear wall are in really into the inclosure such if they engage the lateral side of the person being a reasonable expectation of success prong as opposed to the motivation to combine crime ok and i want to make something very clear on this st of all canfield never argued reasonable expectation of success in its petition a supporting declaration nowhere does the petition mention the reasonable expectation of success much less argue it or argue that there is evidence supporting a reasonable expectation of success it's devoid of th the rationales that are presented by the petitioner in the petition and the board went through and examined those and the board found at the bottom of page thirty one and by the way this court reviews judgments not decisions and we submit your honor that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the board's finding number one with respect to no motivation to go buying which was the only argument presented and argued by canfield below whole body image that is the is the creased resolution the avoidance of shadows they don't underestimate those motivations in the decision well your honor they do reference two things real quickly they say two they say to the average you're not showing me where they've addressed these other motivations other then the whole dated petitioners the th several rationales for why a person would have had reason to combine the teachings of what you heard but these rationales are general in nature and do not address any modifications that way specifically so they me that part of the problem which underlies a good deal of the concern is the breadth of the claims don't have the limitations that we're discussing well your hon each of said imaging devices generates an image of the illuminated person or portion thereof and then they go on to say in the last three lines allowing precise measurement of the image features of the person or portion they're located at the specif we'd that if you add any cameras over and above voice single camera the image of that camera is either going to be partially or fully excluded it will be partially yeah but let's st talk about the motivation to combine your honor and this is what the board considered and this is what dr vander if why would a person avoid an area skill be motivated to add an additional camera to the side of the camera and boy if that can if that is the image from that camera is going to be at least partially occluded and subject to shadowing the board found that a person avoiding every skill would not have been motivated to make that combination modifications if any are going to be and make to avoid that was necessary for canfield to do in order to st establish there would be a motivation to combine because the person avoiding every skill would not be motivated to combine if adding that of that position framework and how important it is to maintaining what's called registration reproducibility because what they do here in kuwait is they take an image of the person at one point in time the person then comes back into the person again and then they need to compare the images those two points in time and assess whether there's any differences in the lesion that is an image and so they need to maintain and boyd is very clear about this registration reproducibility the way they do that is by virtue of the position framework a significant part of which is the lateral sliders which as you can see your honor if you go to figure two on and seventy four avoid you can see that those sliders have to appear in the image if they don't appear in the image you cannot get a registration reproducibility ok so you can't just move those out of the way according to voice you can't just get rid of them by the way canfield never proposed any modification to those flyers but according to voice you can't get rid of those because if we look at figure two of weight and we look at his associated description those sliders they have to be imaged in his accordance with his teachings so that when the patient comes back in you've got a fixed reference point in the nd image were to add a camera to do that that camera would be at least the image would be at least partially included the image would be subject to shadowing and therefore the person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to make that combination show that if you add cameras in addition to the single camera voice so if you were to add on lee the front four cameras of hurley to avoid there would be no motivation to do dealt with that issue never describe in their position or anywhere how to modify the way in order to create a motivation to combine in order to prove a motivation to combine  council's arguments about what the basis of the board's decision was and as instance i think it's pretty clear that the board did not find on the basis motivation behind it found on the basis of a lack of reasonable expectation of recently have expected to be successful in combining one modified voice with her lease arrangement even in this portion that counsel cited for this notion but the board's decision was on the basis of motivation to combine that is that latter part of that same paragraph which makes reference to dr vander wee definition declaration rather it says we agree in credit to detailed testimony that an artesian would not reasonably expected such a combination of be successful there's frankly no statement in the board's decision that the basis of the decision was motivation combined but let's let's let's address what counsel says is the reason that would prevent this motivation from rising and that is that the sliders in his view would partially of clues to the view of additional cameras that were placed in front of the subject we didn't argue that one improve upon the imaging that we already sought to achieve which is the imaging of the front of the body by placing multiple cameras vertically space and then horizontally displacing them and bleak angle one was able then to image more effectively the curved surfaces of the front of the body that voice already saw the image also that arrangement would have the advantage of increasing the area that could be imaged and have one time because voice shows imaging capable from its movable camera of only the torso of the individual whereas vertically spacing cameras would allow you to image from basically from head to toe at the same time so this this existence of the sliders would not not have prevented a person from improving the voice system with the teachings of both hurley and cranston describe lot of this depends on the existence of a wall and the board cited really to no evidence that a wall existed in invoice the really the only statement it makes is in pointing to figure one it says a wall is is disclosed in figure one and grooves in that wall are disclosed that hold the sliders in looking at figure one and i think when we find t three void reference itself shows the sliders as attached to horizontally disposed what appear to be wires in my reading of this diagram that stretch from this from the solid up right of the frame this ninety degree framework that stretch from one side of the frame to the other to hold the sliders i don't see a groove here i don't see any wall here void makes no mention of a wall lamp and oral argument itself conceded that voice does not mention even the need for a wall and the arguments that they make the last can make an appeal about grooves and lines and leave lines and the like were never presented to the board and the board makes no reference to any of that as support for evidence in support of it's determination of a wall this is i think a textbook example of the board kind of going beyond their brief a bit here and imagining structures that are not disclosed in the in in the primary reference let me also say one other thing about sliders there's been a lot of talk about the  given to the shape or size of these sliders the only thing that the flyers need to accomplish is as counsel pointed out is they need to provide some sort of reference point that would be visible in the in the image that is taken and in this particular instance sliders of really any to pension even a minimal dimension that would obscure roughly a small portion maybe maybe even a bar or something that might have a one any argument to exclude determining on its own motion after trial that it was going to ignore that evidence and based on the decision to ignore that evidence it would then going to find that the sliders could not have been retained without