it this morning or honors may please the court the board's obviousness determination is erroneous and should be reversed because it's based on incorrect assumptions about the should reduce the number of files stored in its raw memory which is the key to the board's motivation findings now using incorrect assumptions like this and hindsight bias the boards overstepped its a little bit different than the way you presented in your place but are you saying that that because of the fact that we're talking about one that even that even storing these things in a different motivations because wrong static memory it's burned into the chip at the time of a factor any unused space can later be freed up by the computer to save information or delete to make up more space so this shows that the board's speculation about the technology led to the erroneous result of finding motivation in this course is explained in cases like in re cow and and by medical that the board substantial evidence for the board to conclude that they were stored separately well if you look at mr prosser opinions your honor mr prosecutor does not address the issue of whether the  a file separate from the lookup table that's a conjecture that's brought up by the board on its own there's no evidence for mr proceed or the only other evidence that she might reference that the sort of data this points are stored in separate files that for he testified separate data structures or memory locations and never discusses the issue that that was the basis of the the board's conclusion about it with a different title i understand that's a different a different issue but to the extent that if one reads the board and say the limited separate data structure i heard to suggest that that wasn't supported by substantial evidence which seems to be difficult because the simpson expert testified that the worst separate data structures in the motivation to combine would be based on the elimination of two separate data structures yes but the problem with the board doing its use was watching motivation is that there is no connection in the record between data structures being eliminated and that the data being different files that being consolidated will lead to a conservation of storage space but what you're saying is that samsung argued one thing and the board relied on something else yes your honor and it's compounded here because the board is reliance on a different theory or are speculation about technology led to this incorrect assumption of conflatin patients the person ordinary skilled in the or what have reason to modify the teaching to it she these limitations of claims one seven forty namely to store the various pieces of data in the single look up table which i'm just reading a two into your i make sure i could be a full answer well what we wrong is is not supported by the evidence you're our house because there's no evidence in the record that the that what samsung argues other prefer i shall use are stored in a separate file from the look up table so  take the board's logic here and a person of skill would have chose to simply move the pretty flush values and put them in the same file as lookup table not to include them in that lookup table because should model teaches that what it wants to do is design a look up table that uses a geometric sequence to organize main flash values not main flush values and values as lookup table is focused solely on these main flash values the only reason to but when you say other than one thing so what are you saying there is no value and in putting them together absolutely your honor actually undermined his goals of designing a look at a table that includes just main flash values and use a geometric sequence to organize sponte it wasn't raised or addressed or wasn't raised but i certainly had noticed the board's theory i mean there were that was in their institutions this is right this latter motivation was not an artist a totally new motivation about changing the data quote from the patent owner of response that seems to have pretty clearly understood the saving of storage space point being made it says patent owner contends that quote the institution decision problematic because now we're left with guessing about what the board speculated and its motivation to modify if you look at what it actually said though and it's in its determination to make the distinction between adding on a a a piece of which make the flight the table longer which actually undermines his goals that's the concert conservation of motivation theory and then on the other hand the poor later explains that wait another motivation would be changing the data in a hole so that the table is even longer we teachings of the technology that run memory there is no benefit to this sort of conserving storage space going to mars really said the chin model and o t nine do basically the same thing using basically the same equation and court the issue in this appeal is a fairly narrow one and the pivotal issue is whether other boards determination that these four pieces of data that we've been discussing so far this morning namely pre flood our three flash duration main flash power and main flashed ration whether they be stored in a single table were stored in multiple locations within the same memory of shimada which is rom sixteen let's go to the what i think is your friend on the other side with their strongest argument as is the board found that conserving storage space in the run was really the motivation to put the two together that's correct it's not exactly how i understood you argued it but that's what the board found so if it is true that conserving storage space has zero value when there's no way you could repurpose that conserved storage space then why would someone  be motivated to even do that so that i think what's underlying that point is the idea that ram in raw that there's a difference that matters in this context and we certainly disagree that's the case in either case whether rahm or  when when the system is designed so if you just answered the basic question is there any value to conserving storage space absolutely yes right so what is the value to conserving storage space and in a in ro so in that case two there are two potential benefits one would be smaller stores based requires a smaller rom at the outset the other benefit is that shimano doesn't say this is everything that's in the wrong and so there may be in fact other things we confusion here that what we're talking about is designing the rom in the first place rather than rewriting what's already on the wrong i think that is part of the concern you have confusion  it's once that's known you have some size for these data structures look at they want to file k in some other structure and if those are combined in one like mr pearl's key set forth in his testimony there would be a benefit you would need less storage space for that one data structure then multiple data structures we know show me where your expert ever referred to it story space mr perot so in the petition at page thirty three so he's saying in those lines take that per limb an area that prefer last power and duration those things we know are correlated from shimada but that you know look up table quote because it would eliminate the need for a separate data structure or memory location for conclude that there were some value to conserving storage space and that being there was some relationship between your data structure position which is all your expert talked about and conserving storage space and i am not sure that the destruction he talks about eliminating the need for a separate data structure correct he says he's saying you have two or more you only need one hell of data structure of the form of structure the same as conserving stores so by going from two to one the evidence that you needed to support the board's conclusions no no to be clear what what they're talking about is they're acknowledging that files have properties that files take space that their structures have some space but but so i don't understand what your jeep what you that if it is how the pilot is benefiting from altering the or making the table shorter so what's the benefit is more probably to the memory itself so rob sixteen we know has this look up they in a table long with k could be in a third data structure what we do know is by eliminating those separate structure of structures and including that information in the lookup table that file that there would be a savings which i don't really have restructuring v all i'm saying is that the lookup table is in a file and what mr perot's he testified to again during the proceedings in a second deposition this was something that he was examined on was well you have this sixty four row table that's lookup table to file if you're adding a row is that a reformulation is that adding more space he says not necessarily it may be a small incremental addition or you can accomplish the same thing using that same sixty four row table and that was part of the discussion that's where this idea of interval adjustment i think first became part of the proceedings they were debating how are we going to accomplish this this conservation how are we going to accomplish including these four piece information in that single single table and what he discussed in this this comes again from jamaat a is that if you do increase intervals you have the potential of creating a coarser operating but what your model also says in that an implementation question if you're going to go from two or more data structures to one what happens how do you do that what mr perot skee testified you will haven't told me how it's going to be different data structures conserves and storage space and and if there's any value in conserving storage space because the whole point is if somebody's going to be motivated to do this in order to save storage space and a if you're not really saving storage space or b if saving storage space is useless then you've got a problem with that motivation right so it's not useless by having a small amount of memory you either free up memory for some other use during programming or you use  that way so only if you have some fixed sized rom and you have now less use you have seen when you space in that circumstance you wouldn't have a savings but that's not with contemplated here where some of it is in fact describing this information being determined experience experimentally and stored before and so we do think you would get that savings you could use a small room as you mr perot's piece testimony about where that conservation comes from again he testified you have right now it's your war that's what  you could add a row that would make a sixty four row table a sixty five row table his testimony was that really wouldn't have much of an effect on the overall size or you could increase the interval to keep the sixty four restructur have one room that provides that k but then it wouldn't be a saving there would be a saving because you no longer have the data structure that used to store that book so there's the idea that he certainly testified that there would be a motivation to testified that there are a few alternatives one thing he was examined on in his deposition was the idea that there could be an adjustment to the interval so that if you had other disease say that there would be motivation to adjust the interval he did not say there is a motivation to just the intervals that was implementation question that he was and his his motivation was i don't need multiple structures i can i can use only one and i can use the existing data or i can have this room so he just thought a someone who is looking at a computer structure that's nicer to have simpler daters structures but but as somebody who's putting it together but there that he did not testify to any advantage from it he testified as a person with thirty years in the industry she scientists that digital cameras a kodak that there would be an advantage you would not have to have today structures you could have won the war understood that to be the conservation of storage argument what they did in the in location there was no evidence to that point the arguments that were made by imperium below were really that this data was never used in the first place those aren't arguments that are made here in ram rom argument the evidence that they purportedly cite to in the reply actually comes would you mind answering the question i just asked your friend of the of you're making an important distinction about ok so you get one memory location instead of two and you're saying so what doesn't save you anything what evidence and the board clearly understood their expert to kind of mean something like we're actually conserving resources and that's a good thing and whether the board could do that or not seem might depend on whether you gave them that relates the ideas of mr prosecutes discussion of data structures with the idea of storing conserving storage space by rearranging information in files that is not in the record and again it's samsung's burn to show that now that i