patent owner's objective evidence of non obviousness and i think the easiest way to do that is to because it's a little bit i think it can be confusing as to how all of this stuff works together so i brought along the product that was the subject of industry praise the consumer testim customer testimonials the licensing and othe commercial success this is actually the product that class got a ninety five hundred and i just got double check is there any disagreement that what you have in your hands and next to you is in fact  a sixteen fifty three of the record and it's a ninety five hundred as the model number and it has this grill here and behind this grill there's a speaker but i just want to be clear this isn't what we're going to be talking about speak different speakers doing different things this is not the speaker the speaker has nothing to do with the invention so there's a jack here that's called that says long and if you connect that jack to the demarcation point in your house and that's the point where all the telephone lines come into the house the demarcation point also has lines to go to all the your telephones your extension telephones in the house you connect that line to the s jax call them generally the demarcation point of someplace like the basement or some central location if it's an apartment so what you do is you use these buttons on the front of on the front in your record you record your you can record one or more items of what the pattern calls identity information so it will record and you you say it's bob calling and then you associate that handset switched on and then basically you don't even know this box is this in the house because what happens when the when you get a call and if it's a call or does not have a speaker from this is this happens to be a speaker phone but you can also use the invention with a portable phone that you can take out in the garden you can also be used with just a telephone  that you have a wire connected into that into a jack in the wall for any extension any standard extension telling us what the conventions talk so if you go to the tele connect so what the telecom act article says this quote you could lift the handset without answering the call close quote the reason that's what the board ok so now what happens is you left the handset you pick up the handset but that doesn't answer the call and that's what the the article says the reason it doesn't answer the call is because this box is in the line between the demarcation point and the telephone so then the article says the unit quote  the inside line squeaker meaning the speaker of the handset so what you can do as the article says quote you can answer playing two for example and claim you don't have the idea of having a single speaker through which both you hear the other person talking on the phone and you can hear this caller identification announcement but why is it necessarily so and claim one or two that would cover the idea that if you're not going to learn who the identity of the person is until you pick up the handset for example well claim maybe the claims cover both what you described and the pure speaker phone system and as long as it covers if you were a speaker phone system then prior art about a speaker phone system would be a problem even if the prior art didn't show is that what i write well i guess i'm not quite sure i understand the question because it doesn't really cover the stress the standard speaker phone system because there is no audio now it's in circuit in the standard speaker phone system the one that would give you the the identity information over that street the speaker from speaker ok so the tele connect article praises these features of this particular feature by saying quote they really add utility it frees you from being tied to the proximity of the box and lets the device serve multiple extensions and and wireless phones wireless and that in that day and age in one nine hundred ninety five was what we call portable that or if the claims cover where one and only one just one year ok so part of what was praised is actually not claimed the part that says multiple extensions ok i agree with you it's also another example of a clear nexus of the if for the claims and it says quote if the ninety five hundred is connected right at the phone line sorry if the ninety five hundred is connected right as the phone line comes into your home and all of the phones behind it as soon as you pick up the phone there complained the neighbor the caller what it was the  both the person's talking with the person on the other line talking and also have the caller identification announcement coming out of a speaker phone you know if i instead of having to pick up a handset that's right mind right enough to cover that's right only if you have this box well let's see if you have that box but you're using a speakerphone i mean the claim is broad enough to cover that environment right now where would the praise still apply that as soon as you pick up the phone it'll play the name or is i mean yes that's what i'm trying to figure out i'm trying to figure out the problem here is just the nexus question and either through the law or through the facts themselves i'm trying to understand how your claims are limited  the praise talks about if you have this unit with it's audiogram future which is what the which is why it's called in the plan then what what you what will happen is in accordance with the plan the speaker the speaker your use through the telephone conversation whether it's discrete care or that's big or you will not only be using to be able to use it for the telephone conversation but the identity information you've recorded on this box will also come through that speaker i mean and then what that allows you to do is you don't you don't need any sort of special equipment you know it works with every telephone in the house and that's what the that's what the president's is talking about you heard into your rebuttal time and the reason or the relatively address the secondary considerations evidence because my friend on the other side dressed up first and with respect to that story before you get to take it i don't know if this question has an answer but you spend a little bit of time in your try to distinguish memory but what did they say what they would have they say here's why really is is not such a great piece of prior art maybe the board thought whoa that that's more to think about than we have to think about substantial evidence standard review of so any evidence that supports the bourse factual findings he looked at and marie supports gullickson teachings that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that you could take a single speaker and it could make it so that it could play a variety of signals such as coloring tones a ring tone signals caller id signals and color voice so do you want to get back on the highway of secondary certainly aren't so with respect to the second or considerations evidence the fundamental flaw of all this evidence that there's no nexus and the board found that as a matter of fact in substantial evidence supports it if we take a look at j six hundred fifty three which might friendly as i was talking feature that's being talked about here is the ability to pick up the phone with out connecting the call well that's not playing anywhere including fourteen isn't the idea just one speaker that provides both the c identification and the person who's the caller speaking doesn't that go toward that feature i mean you certainly can't have that feature without having a single speaker but i think that it's certainly a requirement but that's not the feature in isolation circuit operative to prevent the telephone system from completing the telephone call from the caller telephone to the call telephone while the audio in out of the circle is pretty circuit is producing audio used using the audio transducer of the called station so what it's talking about there is that's the feature that's being praised is that ability to pick up the telephone without answering the call do you agree that's independent claim five that is independent to is to that that were cited in claim five not including one in the morning had your friend on the other side are he claimed five separately that it made a difference i don't think so you are because the board found that really for the most this is really more just a recitation of the omens of the features and it's not really pure praise and addition i don't think that you could take a look at this second or consider a situation evidence and say that it outweighs the very no expressway but i think that the board's decision though was based upon the absence of a nexus and that's that finding is supported by substantial evidence because if we just look at the actual o that all the claims rise and fall based upon claims to include fourteen and so it would be far too late for them to raise any arguments now based upon dependent clarified and it is very clear that when you look at this evidence it's all directed  i think that it does need to be recently commiserated so that it doesn't need to be of a perfect fit but here it's not a perfect fit at all or even close to a fit at all because the present itself is directed to those features that are claim to warrant play in fourteen and that's a factual finding the court's decision and remember has indicated that whether or not there is a nexus is a question of fact substantial evidence supports that based upon the board's findings here i mean it went through over six pages in the board's decision going through all the evidence that class girl submitted and determined as a matter of fact that there were it was not persuasive there was no nexus or it was something that was exclusively disclosed in the prior such as the ability to assign names to telephone numbers that of course was something that was closed in fujioka which allowed can can i ask you a question i'm particularly on the tele connect magazine the question might apply to a few of the that yes your i mean i think that there still has to be a nexus between the praise itself and what's being claimed if the praise is to read to just something that is not found in claim one that it's really cling to that's really been directed to that and you can see there's a nexus there and that's what the board found it was a total find that as a matter of fact in this case because the real nifty feature was the ability to pick up the phone without connecting the thinking of that could you imagine a scenario in device that falls within claim too but that it wouldn't have the feature of picking up a hand sat and being able to hear  clean five and because of that the board was entitled to find as a matter of fact that there was no nexus and relying on that evidence the risk essential evidence to support the board's determination there now i'll just briefly touch upon the the other issues with respect to claim two which is just the gulf of course does teach a person of ordinary skill in the art that you can take a single speaker phone and you can play audio from different  the system is capable of audible announcement based on caller id do you agree that these claims don't talk about audible announcement based on caller id i believe that the board here is talking about the device itself and the particular devices that are sold and it's not necessarily referring to the claims themselves because the claims do have a device that can produce audio announcement based on caller id i would i would acknowledge that of course and so the board was saying that there was not enough evidence here that the actual commercial success related to anything that was within the scope of the claims i read this is saying that the claims don't cover a information with an audible announcement and that's why i think that it's really referring here to the device and the failure of proof on that respect not that it's for misreading the claims because i don't think that if you if you take a look at that one sentence it's inconsistent record as directed to be an apple or pick up the phone is just collide by the other a lot of the other evidence objective evidence of record of industry permits we have a philips news release that says that the voice announced feature indicating indicate tunes on the phone no matter where the consumer is in the house and then women eighty to the need for more than one color i which is of record he points out telekinetic magazine ran a gave an award it consumer elect gives them able works at the consumer electronics show so it's it's clearly a technical