for substantial evidence more specifically the one of the main issues on appeal is with regard to the combination of two references to the role  along with  reference she has and whether those two reference together disclose all the limitations of the plane term that is exactly the point and that is exactly the critical difference which is that if you look at the figures that were excerpted by the board the a t l system which is the hook for location sharing is not directly connected to the remote terminal right my question what the significance of that because you say that repeatedly in your brief but you never really clarify why that matters your honor if you're going to get location information from that remote terminal  you're only going to be getting the location of the six unit because the way the two merola describe the the remote terminal is with some components remote still talking to a home base there's disclosure of this dummy terminal windows session which would mean that the location would still be the location of the six terminals there's a fixed terminal running all the components running the a t l system if we swapped location sharing for that a t l system we are still getting the location five i think it's around thirteen to twenty one it talks about the remote terminal receiving communication location updates from the a v l system yes your honor so that's that is still receiving the going to be receiving screen information and the processing and the computations are all going to be done remotely at the six location additionally and there's just there's nothing in that remote terminal that would be able to generate your location information if all of the hardware itself other than that is located back at the base terminal where is the hook to get the location from a should we have to add a g p s or something but just no disclosure of that type of  about how you would get to that obviousness determination other than conclusory statements about a design choice and that is a very simple question of law  adding the user specified symbol that there is no user specified symbol in the context of those two references did we need to say no user specify symbol and then site to in the breakdown the board had of one seven versus one point i don't showing that motivation to make those changes in the contest that you referenced and it's just not there's nothing in the record to support that that support the combination for a design choice  if i may just continue for fifteen more seconds the reason why that's important is because this limitation is about choosing a simple selecting a simple the function of a choice is not a design choice that is functional that is part of the program that is not whether to make it paid red or blue or whether to make a similar car vehicle or fire hydrant or a fire station that is to have the actual functionality in the claim there's nothing in the case law for design choice that would support the decision to add new functionality as a design choice and there's nothing in yes for decoration explain why that would happen ther thank you and may have please the court in this appeal your honors the board's fundamental finding is that both of the terminals into my rollover perform the same functions and share every relevant component and some pages twenty nine and thirty that finding unsupported by the references figures which show that they share every relevant component in the explicit statements in the specification columns five and six as well as expert testimony showing that they in fact perform the same communication in mapping functions the contrary argument has never had any answer for the actual figures themselves to for the sam and as the board held the only distinction is that the two a one terminal gathers the a v l information through wirelessly instead of with a wire to that supported by fundamental substantial evidence and essentially all of a just as arguments fall with that finding today a just addressed primarily to other arguments display based terminal two of one and that's simply contrary to explicit statements in the reference and when you have the remote terminal that is capable of performing that's the only distinction and has no functional impact and that that's what the board held and what we believe is is not just supported it's unambiguous the terminal itself in both figures one and certain functions in the fixed terminal of different functions in the remote terminal that's correct your honor and i think that that's clear both from figures one and figure two which both refer to gee why one hundred and nineteen there's no indication there's one and two and one that's lines twenty three and twenty four in column five and there's simply no basis for the suggestion that anything that the terminals do about processing information in the column it states that the those terminals communicate with the communication units in a similar way and there simply at the very least there is substantial evidence for the board's finding that the only distinction between the two terminals is the wired st wireless connection and that that has no relevance in terms of the obvious and analysis the communicate between the remote terminal and then and then the base terminal in the remote embodiment the issue is where to put the wireless where do you put the location sharing capability motivation to combine is to change that easy else system into a different kind of a box for a the l always reside in a fixed location so for taking that system and turning it into a two way system