the morning thank you may please the court where the courts indulgence i'm going to address three specific issues this morning i'm going to address one error committed with respect to each set of claim rejections in or yes your honor and if you'd like me to address claims twenty five twenty six twenty seven twenty eight five dollars i'll do that whatever order i just want to see where we were in terms of the relief yes your honor there can you tell us with respect to misstatement why that should matter at the end of the day for us i mean we look at it if we accept the other side arguments with respect to what the prior teacher why even if we all the knowledge that there was that statement in other words the examiner did not have the same arguments that the that alien had you know the work it got to deal with aliens arguments before the board so i don't understand what with the deprivation you  honor the deprivation is own review here are the board's findings and conclusions of law that's what's on review here and that's the only thing that we have had the opportunity to put in evidence for and to argue against w right i mean you're up here on appeal and you making an argument with respect to why there should be one bill and a determination on these and and i think you already made the argument but even if you didn't of course you would have to you have those separately in two different places approx and so if you can bind them your honour's you're doing exactly what the priority did and exactly what we distinguished over the prior art of the in other words you got your state information in little child is being put on to a single chip on to the single electronic circuit a fake and sour and so you actually are that's correct and so why isn't combining them to give you the invention because you will if you combine them then you have the temporary memory to stay holding steady in the traditional  combining them the way that the board combined know who i understood the board articulated it we'll everybody seems to agree with that the question is whether if you combine them you get the invention you do don't you be would have been a retune absent a routine application of nose techniques you're on that's not enough to combine references i mean just how you could click just got back and physically put two things together doesn't mean that they should be put together i mean there has to be some boat evasion there has to be some reason there has been i mean big boards right is it routine to take physically a state holding cell circuit and a nonvolatile readable rideable memory together and put them together on the same tag welp of course it's easy to do but the question is why would you do it well i guess the theory is that there are some advantages to having a temporary memories in the seat holding cell you're right your honor that to having it separate and you're right your honor and that those were the recognized by our patent take these are our inventors before our vendors came along and invented this nobody had done this nobody had thought that there was an advantage nobody realized that the advantage problem that was recognized in the industry but your honor we could we solve that and if it had been so obvious if the if the solution to the problem had been so obvious th what they did is they took the state information out of a little child put it into a think and sell them and basically made the prior art so then you have little child over here without any purpose without any memory without any data without any anything that has to do with i think they intentionally did i don't think they made a statement i think they thought that that was the invention but then that's not the invention because then there is no se substantial evidence in a vacating remand be appropriate under no circumstances we believe that the record fully supports that and that this court me affirm as to that as to that rejection for some of the reasons that the court already just stated we also believe that a it's a little difficult to understand because we have essentially a history of somewhat conflicting statements throughout the board decisions and also in the xander decisions so for example if we look at the first board decision decision that is now on review we again have a combination of statements that are stating at the correct way and then also the team which we've all talked about here where the board transposed it so for example in the here and everybody here agrees that below alien argued that it would be obvious to use a state holding cell as disclosed in little child in a conventional r if id tag that would have conventional nonvolatile memory that they can't agree with us that that's their view of the case because we've never said that and we never argued that we always consistently argued that they would be the state holding cell and then the nonvolatile memory and that a state holding so we as taught in a child so i would also like to turn to the question of whether they had the opportunity to respond to this argument at various points during the reagan era nation and they did in fact have that opportunity and i would just like to point and again at a five seven five they have addressed that argument so internet was clearly on notice that this argument was being presented and it did have the also there was one statement that was made earlier regarding the teachings the little child that i may have heard it incorrectly but i just want to make sure that the record is clear on this little child actually discloses a state holding cell in volatile memory so i believe that counsel may have made a statement and i'm sorry for him but i believe there's maybe a statement that in the prior art the state holding cell was actually in nonvolatile memory and what they did is separated sixty six there is a reference to the muting information which is the new chip bit a little child being stored in temporary memory so a little child absolutely discloses that th presence of a separate nonvolatile memory and this is something that the board recognize and particularly in the for its decision on rehearing exactly in line with this it also teaches that w promised a standard component of these are if i d written for these claims the border found these claims are obvious over a combination of two references little child and stewart and the only question here is whether whether or stewar discloses a state holding self and we believe that the words determination that it does is is supported by more than substantial evidence and stewart's disclosures make this fairly clear so stewart teaches that tags will face interruptions and power but then states that one of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that any device that might suffer from the loss of power will benefit from a tenacious storage state or latch it then goes on to describe this tenacious latch and accept that this circuitry maintains a particular state for a prolonged period of time and this can be used in applications such as enabling a circuit to continue to function in the event it's specifically says it maintains the state and stewart says again it teaches that it's important that certain states like sleep wake or other command states persist even through short interruption of the power supply it's talking about a state persisting during an interruption of the power supply and it teaches that the latch of stewart can't function as this sleep wake latch and so it's stuart very clearly teaches that it's to maintain maintain state information during an interruption in power which is all that claimed twenty five requires and so for those reasons to believe that words determination that claims twenty five twenty six and the twenty eight twenty nine are obvious over the combination of little child and stuart is supported by more than substantial evidence  with my remaining time unless the court has any questions regarding that i would like to turn to claim twenty seven and as counsel noted with respect to claim twenty seven we so i would like to turn to what the substance of what the board said here and so for claim twenty seven we have two different references at issue we have this is a glee's reference and we have again the finke and seller reference from before which is the  so really what the board is saying is that it is obvious when you have one here on doing two things to split that into two elements each doing a separate thing so this is the extra would not be redundant it's performing the function of serving as the nonvolatile memory in reading and writing other data whereas the other iraq is functioning as a state holding cell and that's ok here because there is no requirement that the state holding cell be what while it certainly can be implemented in baltimore emory there is no requirement that it be involved in memory and so we believe that that determination is fully supported by substantial evidence you for very quick point in answer to judge doles question about was it a mistake it was a mistake the board did it three times and they committed same mistake three different times with respect to the it's not it's not an inner part interview third your honors are heard from aliens council the use of the term predictable as well that's a good question it really is question on motivation how is it predictable that you can put these two memories together how's it predictable i mean sure you can put them you can put them together and it would be easy physically to put them together but where's the  et there has to be a new signal sent a new signal received and that's the whole purpose of the eight for one invention is so that you don't have to stand and receive resetting signals and that happens