want to says that the office and rejecting claims must rely on or cannot rely on patents that are unrelated to the technology before then the non analogous prior  and for a reference to be an analogous reference has to be one of two standards being the same field the office contends that are agrees this oven that's used to heat windows is not in the same field as a cutting machine or the second standard second test is the reason way pertinent to the problem of the inventors are trying to saul and the case that goes on to say well we look at the specifications of the references to identify the problems that the inventors were trying to solve and if we do that we see that the present invention is concerned with errors caused by the sales associate in the store and measuring and calculating the dimensions of the blind to be cut and improving that the timing of getting the job up whereas if we look at the problem that mcglinchey is trying to solve what he's trying to solve is to automatically vary the energy that's applied to the glass window based upon the optical properties of the glass but what the prior art was attempting to solve isn't really the question is  it's the question is what is what it is the current and banter trying to solve and would they look how would they look broadly at categories they don't necessarily say i'm only going to look at someone who is trying to solve my same problem otherwise you would never find prior art to be relevant for purposes of you know an obviousness analysis where you've got to combine on this welcome to always be something missing well that's that's true you're looking at the problem that at the inventor is trying to soften the claims under consideration but the question becomes is this reference going to be reasonably come to his attention or something he might look at based upon what that product is doing or trying to do and here we say that's an element well they're trying to do is determine whether to turn on more or less heat lamps depending on the properties of the glass were true that it was just to set parameters then you've got every machine that every existed and i don't i don't think that's the right question the question is how do you set parameters in this type or similar machine and it's just not related to the area no one and someone the terminating how to build a saw a machine that a cutting machine is not going to look at a method of  apparatus for processing in a glass insulating unit so would you limit the field of arc to what the field of work would be two machines involved in in cutting discussion of that one of who would have skill in the art would be but it seems like the board address that for the first time that examiner didn't make any finding and i recall on who one skilled in the art would be that exam or didn't is he looked that he found a quinsy somehow and said this is what it teaches you didn't go through the the process of qualifying it is as appropriate work and can abstract if you keep going who writes sort of like want to one you can make anything abstract if you extrapolate it up far away so if input errors is the analysis and everything is actually in the the briefs that office pointed to the board's decision but what evidence have they put in the record to show that a method an apparatus for processing  things like bar codes were well known in new york at the time more codes were known to the extent that they associated in a grocery store the barcode and the price of the of the  were not well known and in terms of these type of machine or its i mean jabar itself has manual entry the other references dick has manual entry of of those informations none of them do that  act it sounds to me like that court understands the arguments in the case and i'm happy to answer any questions that the panel has or let's let's start with the last point i mean you argued that that it could be obvious over to bar alone and i understand one of the problems with that as is whether there's a chance or a problem because the board didn't basis decision on that how do you get around that well i think the facts in evidence here really show the point there which is that so for example on claim thirty examiner found that the  lookup table was known it was well known and the applicant didn't dispute that in front of the board so so the look up table is really the fundamental what's being used in the process of taking and an indicator and converting it to a a dimension that's the only technology being used there so the party has a memory it would have been conceded by everyone that it would have been known to add a lookup table to that memory and and that sort of takes care of all of the necessary facts here but also we have the mcglinchey reference that shows the existence of taking a dim and non dimension and using that through a lookup table to find a dimension of a product but but but added that it would have been obvious over to sorry that the lookup table is is known and sort of generally no right there's no dispute that it is not shown in jabari but that it is just is still an obvious limitation based thirty so once you have that it's just that i think the fact that it had it's just it's not worth got looking at a district court decision where we have flexibility to to affirm based on anything in the it it just hasn't even been a challenge because the examiner found the fact that the look up table was known in the uk so what let's talk about the potential because that is the it is a little concerning that examiner doesn't even define who who one of skill in the art is so he doesn't even say what the art is he just goes out and find something that seems to have this kind of u p input and when asked why that's relevant art he says because it has the emperor i mean i get that the board tried to say what they say what the examiner did by backing up and saying let's define one of skill in the art but i think we have to start with what the rejection was based on right right and what the examiner did was find a reference that that shows what's missing from to party but but the  it's like you were saying earlier that it sort of depends on what level of specificity you're looking at and here this claim is admitted to be everything in this wind cutting machine claim is in including an automatic leap positioning the stops based on accept one limitation except this one limitation and if that's not the problem that the inventor was trying to solve then there's nothing less than that and then only you have is something that's disclosed by jabari so you have to be looking at what is it that is that the inventor is trying to add to the prior art and so what the inventor here is trying to add to the prior art is we're joined this backwards so what you're saying is you don't figure out what the relevant field is and then see if anything's in that field that teaches that you're saying let's go find what teaches it and then let's define the field to cover whatever we satisfy the first on of the test there's a reason there's a second prong of the test which is well other fields that this inventor might have looked to and things like in the sinai but you have to define those fields before you say i s that a soda pop cap was relevant to what somebody would have looked to in the art of flash chromatography because it's solving that same problem so it has to do with a sort of case has the hinge for full that bed murphy bed and being used is being applied to the field of treadmills so it's not that the somebody working in treadmills also works in the falling back but it's straight it's you're still looking at hinges you're looking at right the part of the claim that's that is that the separate references being used for so in that case the separate reference was being used just for a hinge and the rest of it was shown in the claim and here the rest of everything was shown in jabari everything from the claim was shown in jabari except the thing that's missing which is how you how in which you avoid errors in putting into a machine right and that's exactly what the test tells the board to look at and so hypothetically if the machine here had been a space ship were taking people to the moon and there'd been some way of having inputs made without mistake that would have qualified well in the field of art in which you find the reference  solved in other ways jabari solves it in precisely the same way it's just a question of how it gets that the input of the dimension so that in the dimension can either be input as a number thirty six inches or as a barcode and look for coding window glass well then well for one thing it's in the field of machine of machines that are taking a dimension of a product and of you need to find a spring and oh these murphy beds have springs and we can look to those and here you need to find a way to not input the dimension itself so you can look to other machines that have a way elsewhere i mean i think that it's certainly important to a point of hindsight bias but the but the case law does allow you to look outside the field of the invention and that that's the purpose of the they so the examiner here and the board were looking outside the field of the invention and assuming that a person of ordinary skill would have some understanding of other machines outside of the precise blind cutting field reference was a pressurized bottle and the problem but both we're trying to solve was to get the c e o on the cart routes to maintain the pressure so those were  well again if you're looking to the problem right i mean i think that case is your hardest one to get around and and because they're what ultimately they set is because they both solve the same problem you can look to it so there wasn't a first defining of the art before determining its relevance to understand i see what you're saying but in terms of pressurized bottoms that's that's the york and that's the problem they're talking about because it was the claim was to a doing things for the home oh we're trying to decide to design a machine that's that's cutting a bomb because i so richard your your invention is anticipated by one reverse except for the fact spaceship if the references i hang about a space ship ok and somewhere in there it has this bottle i don't think it's going to come to his attention but that wasn't what was going on here the reference was o and scientific products now what they're doing here is they're taking out a reference that has nothing to do with this field and no one designing at saunas even a look