morning your honor says may please the court the conflicting expert testimony in this case raises numerous genuine issues of material fact including whether or not it would have been easy example is it is a computer microprocessor chip for maximizing the cooling of all of the companies in the camp is not directed to power supplies it's not directed to projectors and here in the context of the person of ordinary skill in the art because there's a difference even though you know computers and projectors are fair game for consideration there is a big difference between computers and projectors projectors have a number of key generating sources or from the noise problem he said first of all you do have to consider the fact you've got to consider were dean told and you do have to consider the fact that what they were trying to do is isolate the hottest complement to maximise the pool  forward to isolate here for the power supply and now run into problems as he's pointed out in his declaration with not potentially not having enough here for the like not having enough here for no other year subsequent to our briefing of the court there talk to both how well a combination is expected to work is certainly a legitimate consideration in an obviously obviousness is different territory from infringement i don't want to make the other point while you have a small pause that we've also mentioned that mr keller his declaration contends that knock on her it does not include all of the elements of the claim that gor obviousness is are they combine them all and if combined you know do they have all of the old can we one point out as well that that part of the analysis here is whether whether you have something simple  several of its decisions trying that in sorcerers and commonwealth where there were genuine issues in which ariel fact because of conflicting expert testimony this court held properly that summary judgment is not appropriate and that's we're here on summary judgment where for tronic has the clear and convincing burden of proof we believe we grade raised in a very detailed declaration that that there are genuine issues of material fact here with respect to you have an invalid when it crosses the punter mr tellers determination that the power supply is missing from naca mora is based upon his understated and reinterpretation of the power supply element of having to have an enclosure and it refers to the definition of anyway so that is not an underlying issue of fact it is really a in opinion of an expert how the the what the claim term should be which is not at issue furthermore with regard to the the cases the sister group case the twyman case the source search case all of those were either overturned or firm from non obviousness because of an underlying issue of fact components which you do bring up that was another one that was at all to be useless analysis was this not held up there they were missing an element for the ear piece so all of those cases are particular case when you look at the declaration of mr cohen in only one place in his declaration does he talk about predictability that's unheard of sixty three so part four and he doesn't say the combination of he never once in his declaration ever said that the combination was unpredictable that is the lawyers argument that has come up after the fact in order to afford it why rule and of course dr bieber never used the word predictable or unpredictable and in fact the i don't think anybody disputes that airflow is mysterious and in response to a precise question from a c c's council chief testified i don't know for sure whether this cooling air coming from the dark forty two would impact the cooling layer and she said that the air flow is mysterious and he pressed lawyer pressed and said one time and  know if i really wanted to know the answer i would model it in other words i would use normal in sharing tools to figure out how to work so all of these issues none of which are in the claims dealing with whether or not noise he says that that would not be he says that would be inconsistent with the teachings of not mora not that it would necessarily be a problem but you are saying that it's part of his inconsistency between not of war or being what it one thing that really hasn't come up with in response to their reply not good more actually serves you can have multiple airflow paths and still accomplish the basics for reducing the number of forty two to come in and have direct cooling air right into the power supply so this whole argument about one skilled in the earth not knowing whether or not it would work for its intended purpose if you just look at the teaching and not to morrow we see that since in figure one i don't have any fresh air coming in at all if i wanted to and figure to take all the air from the intake forty two and pass it on through the power supply and direct that out i would factual issues also the ultimate question which their challenge and predictability slash combined ability on despite the problems we have if it is drawing that fine line in this case the fine line tips and favorite being a legal all kinds of reasons why he doesn't think that a person skilled in the it would have used were these conduit for a purpose of cooling power supply but that's sort of an ultimate you know which is what cha he didn't think were dean's conduit would absolutely pool the power supply but you'd have to then be confronted with all sorts of hurdles to make it work and when you're confronted with those you run into all of the other problems that the projectors can't  provided a lot of face in summary judgment opposing summary judgment and interesting leave their expert dr bieber never came back and said the did it with their burden of proof that the invention what worked for its