can i just tell you how much i appreciated if you read limited your arguments on appeal to what you thought were the most successful arguments because and dinner raise every single issue from from the i p r's because that really happen ed i really appreciate of how it selectively you know making their arguments not throwing the kitchen sink at us well thank you judges i appreciate that and thank you judge laurie may have please the court john o'quinn on behalf of corning  we have focused on a singular issue on appeal because it's one where pan to its obviousness arguments depend on taking the claimed invention and working backwards to conclude that it would be obvious to making use  the st ever translucent cam mechanism from the very prior art the candidate relies on the talk as our reference teaches a different solution to the purported problem the claims require and this is why we appeal just with respect to these claims cam disclosed anywhere in the prior art yet you will search into its experts testimony and the board's decision in vain to find any analysis or any reasoning for why east skilled artisan with the hand would have been motivated to develop the translucent cam rather than using toc as i was solution of the forcing mechanism with a physical opening and that's a solution that will itself put emphasis on if required to consider tack as our solution because they relied on different prior art for the disclosure of the cam and respectfully that doesn't make sense when you're assessing motivation this court has made clear in cases  like polaris st is arctic cat and or indy versus apple there must be some reason for not pursuing a known solution to the purported problem for some reason for not pursuing  it on and and your can't is and isn't that enough of a reason to say well we're going to move from this class to a two to the can and because we but you won't find any analysis for why the person of ordinary skill in the art would be would be led to you to but with talk as i want a hand to use the cam and to make the cam translucent there's there's literally nothing in there experts analysis to say oh well the solution that a person or more skilled the art would nies that this solution would be better and that's exactly what i'm saying is missing here that there needs to be some analysis for why a person of ordinary still new york would think that this combination was better than a combination that uses talk as i was teaching and that doesn't mean that somebody has to mechanically take tack as was spring and apply what i have to say it would have been better can't they just say looking at the prior art a skilled artist and would have known to do this not that it's better but that it could be done well and isn't that what their experts i mean this is i'd struggle with i think what's fundamentally going on here is the panel with its approach offers a solution in search of a problem that didn't need solving and that is talk of solid provides a complete solution for how to be able to see the like if that is the motivation that they want to rely on for some why somebody would have combined all of these things together in the st place and nd while i agree with you that you know yes the the standard of review is is an important one here number one i think that what the board has done has engaged in legal here because the board never grapples with the argument that i'm making the board doesn't say you're right that there's a reason that a person would still be motivated by that's a legal here in the board's analysis and to the extent that you're positing will maybe there would be a reason that a person of ordinary d skill in the are would think that it would make sense to modify in light of what they've learned from from  what you're now doing is positing things that are not in the record and weird of course here on a p a review the court cannot affirm on alternative grounds or or alternative hypotheticals that it can only affirm on things that are in the record and the record does not reflect a reason that a person of ordinary skill in the ark would take the teachings of tacos allah and say oh well that means that i should not only have the translucent splicing components but time ever and the only thing that they even attempt to point to and the only thing that the board quotes is there is a passage in from there x were the talks about that you could potentially quote view from a variety of directions rather than only one specific viewing direction that's appendix one thousand and twenty seven that's the only thing you know along the lines of what you're asking for why wouldn't somebody take this and put it together that's the only thing that the board up potentially points to the problem with that four column eight line forty nine it's ok if you something other than spring but it has to have the physical opening and the problem here is that they've they want to look at tuck as allah and and take certain snippets out of it as opposed to looking for it looking at it for all that it teaches and precisely because you don't have a teaching of translucency with respect to the force applying device th it obvious to have translucent a and b and my response to that is ok well where's the analysis to show that where where is the why why wouldn't a person of ordinary skill the art with a known solution in hand use that solution and the only thing that they've ever suggested is this viewing for a variety of of viewing angles and a very important to look at that testimony it's page one thousand and twenty seven of the appendix and it is not addressing at all it is making a comparison between the translucent cam and the prior art opaque can the solid opaque cam wear which could potentially do with peak around that solid opaque camp it goes to grounds that the board did not institute on there is never in either the analysis of their expert were the board's decision any explanation any reasoning any logic for why the person of or stead of using the type of solution suggested by talk as would instead for the st time come up with something completely new i see i'm beginning to be in my rebuttal time i'm happy to continue answering questions or i can save the rest of my time and they they basically all boil down to the can like connect every aspect of various aspects of that and according to not disputed that all of those various connector components all disclosed that reside in the claims so you've got basically everything in one place would want to make that translucent and that's what the board adopted and made it's finding in the final decision a twenty nine that testimony is crucial does different viewing angles that a person is coming out from is to look at the splice junction that the member for clamping is that a cam it's a little confusing there we are but i way believe they're referring to is the components the components in other words the splice components in other words those are things that work together with the cam to do that  the teachings in column eight and this is lines of roughly forty eight of column a to column nine you know roughly line six that flows the testimony from dr dick you say this is the substantial evidence teaches the translucent cam splice components that work with that cam and that is conceded by corning the fact that the splice components are taught in the art so it's a very minor baby step to go to than a translucent cam that works with them look for a drawback particularly when you have an affirmative reason and to look at the teachings as a whole that talk is out of provides which is the sea ships bring but also translucency that's why it's sort of an irony what they're arguing which is that we're focusing narrowly on bits and pieces of doctors out when in reality that's exactly what they're doing by ignoring translucency and focusing only on the sea ship's friend not to mention the fact that the sea shapes spring is a completely different design then the ninety six and in fact this evidence was so compelling that your talk as i was translucency teachings that corning actually attempted to answer date unsuccessfully so that get rid of talk is always part of this analysis clue to leave clearly had failed which is why we're here today and i should also point out of course dr dick you say this is testimony that there be a very strong motivation to arrive at the translucent cam so the person of skill could very look at for a various viewing angles to determine whether or not there were spies continuity cited this case in our standard review section starts on just use this point that if two inconsistent conclusions may reasonably be drawn from the evidence in the record the peter decision to favor one conclusion over the other is the epitome of a decision that must be substa sustained for review for substantial evidence and really that's exactly what we have here even if there's some sort of factual disagreement about whether he would use translucency or whether or not you would use it whether you would use the c shaped spring that thank you judge larry what is going on here is the use of the pen as a template for its own reconstruction just what this court said you cannot do instance sides that's the reason that they pick a  collection of prior art that they say would give you a cam and therefore a translucent cam but of course as this court said in a t d versus light oh the what motivates a translucency for one thing and teaches a physical opening for the thing that they are now trying to apply translucency to the only justification that he has is exactly what i told you was going to be he points to the one statement that you could refute from a quote a variety of viewing angles and i encourage you to go back and look at page appendix one thousand and twenty seven dollars the board cited it block quotes at appendix twenty nine and on that page there is no discussion no comparison to talk as well whatsoever he is not talking about work making a comparison to talk as i was solution he is talking about a comparison soley to the use of opaque ca that were in in the prior art and so there is nothing that they point to in fact quite true to show that a person would be motivated to come up with something other than talk as i would which is obviously what motivates a person of ordinary skill in the art isn't to invalidate a patent it and gives a quote why a range of directions from which to look and so what we're left with is nothing but attorney argument to fill in what is a fundamental failure of proof here he says well it's just a baby step to go from having translucent splicing components to saying you want to have more translucent components will if it was that obvious to do that why didn't the shot or why didn't their expert give some explanation for why it would be obvious  take that step because the one thing he pointed to as nothing to do with translucent cams at all and that brings me back to one of the questions that us to earlier judge judge hughes and that's this there had never been a translucent cam in the prior are and is this court has held in in d s s and in a randy when you're talking about a limitation that is missing the search for a reason the basis for a person of ordinary skill in the arts of to modify to come up with that has to be searching and that is what is lacking here as well as no analysis of by the board whatsoever of the quote existence of the prevalent method of achieving the limitation at issue in the quote which this court found was prejudicial for the board not to do in a randy vs apple and so based on that i think what you have is not just an issue viz a viz substantial evidence which is lacking but a legal error by the board by failing to engage in the kind of analysis that is required based on the prior that was presented to the board happy to answer any