often seems like the making a dressmaker's dummy on which they can fit as pertinent prior art in other words tailoring  is permanent art has l e d ends on a curtain rod plug with an electrical cord plugged in and the prior art is a bicycle safety light mounted on a pole on reference which is a little confusing reference seems to relate to theater lighting it discloses methods of combining light of different spectra in order to achieve a pre determined lighting condition so to  the dean reference the bicycle safety light and defined the problem in such a way that it becomes a driver and addresses the problem that the inventors of the did that too often and that what they said was if there could be any number of problems that that would be solved by these the things that the patent actually discloses and we're not supposed to be limited to  solve right and they said for instance with respect to one of the references that the inventor was trying to resolve the need for cordless power for an illuminated rod and dean provided the answer to that question why is that with this tack that supposed to have oil in it and below the little hole at the bottom of the tank has the space and they wanted to fill that up with something to get all the oil out of it so they put some gel down there and the prior art was the dense which was a gel that would be injected into an underground formation where they were trying to get oil it would still up spaces order to get the oil out so that problem sounds identical but the court here said no those are very different  situations you if you're trying to extract get the last drops of oil out of a tank that isn't the same thing as trying to get oil out of the ground if you're trying to light  curtain rods with l e d s in a way that won't exhaust their batteries in a short amount of time you wouldn't look to a bicycle safety light that would never have thought about using an electrical cord because it couldn't and the like and or i mean but the fact that it wouldn't of thought about using electrical cord doesn't doesn't change the fact that it had a way to provide light without intellect and this is exactly what i'm getting at is the tendency of examiners is to create the motivation and then use that motivation as pertinence to the problem not by tailoring but that's my whole point before about  saying in k s r and that is that you don't have to be trying to sell the patent ts problem it order to dispose a way to do it so yes i think they were never going to in a bicycle light but they were able to establish that you could have a light it lighted fixture on the bicycle without a without a clock without a court you know isn't that exactly what what the patent is talking about well because you're looking at the solution and rather than looking at the problem in the case of the your case sense that you're looking for prior art that would have logically commended itself to the inventor in trying to reach the solutions so the question is would a person trying to make a lighted finial look to bicycle safety lights to solve the some form of lamp that you wanted to have free standing away from the electrical outlets that an illegal fixture at the top of a pole where the batteries were lighting the pole how would you defied the limits well we're not in the field of endeavor because i believe that has been conceded were in the problem faced by the inventor and the problem as it relates to the dean reference is what do we do about these electrical cords  the solution that was adopted there were multiple solutions one was to use only the lights one was to use batteries and then the other was to have an automatic light sensitive switch which would turn it off during daytime so you're not running the i'm saying that it wouldn't address the problem of being out of the access of the consumer and also the prior art using cords the drake down from the curtain and clash with the decor or are dangerous that was what the prior art talked about so you in getting rid of those things you're looking for a solution that would not logically commend itself to a bicycle safety light which didn't really solve the problem of the short battery life anyway because that was an old pat using incandescent bulbs and had a switch which the bicycle right and we just turn on and off you know getting on or off the bicycle but here you have these finials that are located up high and they're hard to  reach the l e d low power consumption helps a lot but then you add to that a lot of automatic light sensitive switch which is found in the dish arm reference but that's not the pertinence issue that comes up with to sharm  they used to sharm to find that automatic light sensitive switch which is in the independent claims but they found something else in the deep end and claims with which to combine to shine which was a different light color so they said well we're going to  take the chen you know a shower curtain l e d light with a cord we're going to combine it with dean because it has batteries and the cartridge issue is a separate issue about the obviousness analysis but on pertinence we're going to does but that's not what the shrine does what the sham does is take different spectra of light mix them in order to make it to meet a target illumination uses a processor and a light sensor in order to accomplish that so now the where the board in the examiner and the patent office here do run it is they define the problem that you sharma was addressing which was trying to mix different spectra of light in order to read to reach a target the limitation change color why actually that's not exactly the case they're mixing l e d s a different spectra in order to reach a target elimination but they're not providing the solution the solution to the problem or addressing the problem that the inventors here were dealing with which was in the dependent claim having lights that would change color coding to the users not by mixing spectra not by the use of a processor and not by the other mechanisms those are the factual issues i think you're getting to which in the obvious analysis analysis do sharm they site through the processor and the light sensor as you know the mechanism by which you get to both the automatic light sensitive switch but also the change of color but that's way beyond what the claims here even talking about it doesn't read on the claims that all the claims talk about an the sharm system reaches the target illumination the idea being if you're making a movie one day and you have a certain lighting condition you want to be able to come back the next day and if the circumstances of change you can get the same line of the processor is switching from one set of that the processor sensor and lighting fixture combination operates as a switch in the way that's claimed here the way it's claimed here is that there is a switch between the battery and the light that's the switch to common electrical solutions like other lighting applications and the bike light in dean would certainly logically commend it to an inventor trying to solve the problem of providing light without like tennis circuit check where in tennis a designer child's toy for a water balloons wouldn't even really necessarily know that balloons are used in the surgical device he wouldn't even think you might have something like that the this case i mean i'm looking for a definition of the out of the two you started off by talking about where you are some people is that how you would define the out of all three art that isn't  i think five so putting it to this case probably the outer boundary for that a light without the  had to be something that would be you would think would be applicable in the household around so something i think we give the example of a nuclear submarine or maybe it would not be something that would be useful to solve the problem in the household around do it have to absolutely be in the household around i don't think it would necessarily have to be in in a house maybe a consumer good would be helpful but an electrical iran where the you know both of these references seem to be within the so is in to do you dish are as a consumer reference i think that's probably in the borderline dish and says that it's lighting device it theatre and things like that but really the design of the lighting component is a visual art and the whole point of this curtain rod is to make something attractive and you would want to put into the inventors here you would want to put these lighted bulbs on end to make it more attractive so the pulp set of problems that are being discussed into charm are the same type of problems in the same kind of applications that are what your response to your friend on the other side when he says that that it's about changing colors of lights it has the ability it has extra abilities then it can do a lot more things in the attic and adjust the color of light with in white light to make it a little bit you know i have a different spectrum but it's explicit that it when it's talking about color lights it refers to colored lights as not white so there isn't really any way that that word misunderstood you charm when  mean that it's not a switch and beyond that again that's an actual finding that the word is entitle to substantial and interview on but does the the processor go into shore really control the electrical and that shows the power company and the processor and then the processor can controlling the light source and then the text of the specification as well supports that in for example the specification here color and in this appeal they've changed that to change a controlling brightness a new argument i'm not saying that that's what's going on with the sharm anyway it use processor fixture combination switch in the way it's claimed here which is a switch interposed between the battery and the light fixture but i think what what this case represents and why it's a good case is that it illustrates how the patent office tends to redefine things in terms of the the solution or as your honor i think you're tending to go which is to say well here are structure and would have logically kamil is there any difference between with respect to apartments analysis when you're talking about extremely complex technology versus fairly simple technology  well that was my next point i wanted to address which is you know where do you draw the lines and i said well there are many sources of power you know and self contained power nuclear submarines space ships watches consumer products we can just kind of you know say that everyone knows all that stuff as in circuit check where they said well you know it's just like keying a car you know everyone knows how to keep a car and so that makes a person an art it isn't addressing the problem that the invention was seeking to solve it's addressing this issue of well where do you draw the line and here i think the line is not even closely drawn to a consumer product lighting products