five seven application invalid obvious over mitchell and gold and the board's decision in the board's rehearing decision are deeply flawed like to go through three limitation and says nothing else there's no explanation as to why mitchell suggests these these two imitations which is even more important as this is right after the board mitchell and said no it's not in here suppose it just it just suggests so there is no disclosure in the reference it's just suggested that that point i mean so so so what if you were to affirm this what you're saying you know as well if you don't have to do it for that what happens if you if you go to channel five on mitchell if there is a trigger the as nothing to do with the user then allows you the t v might be able to or or novelty that we're talking about here is that you crease store information so that when you want to impress a button and it comes up i mean it the way you described it maybe it's just me doesn't that seem i mean i don't know what prior ar maybe ma doesn't do it but it would seem that there would be prior art that would cover it well two thousand and one no there's not an image and to be clear they've the board has and the board is found that that mitchell didn't do it and in essence by basically throwing out ma i didn't do it because first of all they don't have any user interaction with respect to what happens is in mitchell you're not doing anything to potentially get the to the website or address or web content it's just you the the functionality you only use a tablet or a smartphone and having it and having it pre mapped before you ever get to a certain station to be able to once you say you want to go to that combination of all of that the mapping and the obviously the display on the system to remember that all these are most of even have a with the exception of the of these golden for even a display on the remote or a smartphone so yes that that was not know and to be clear just they can't just i guess that the biggest issue that i started with would number one was they just say suggest that's it and they say just by just a couple of limitations to a command limitation and the and the mapping the petition that's just not enough the second point is related to a lack of a motivation to combine they don't even find there was a motivation to combine mitchell with right but you only got that because you originally were were sent the trigger from the network let's say what are the presenter yeah so maybe the first time around you had to push two but those but the second time around it's there no end and another distinction is you why you still have to do it that requires a special dedicated it's not a single but they do does all that combined in that second body so i know what you're talking about so that's another distinction for you but i guess the only way you're going to get there to that cache is if it was originally sent by the broadcaster through a trigger and then you have to you have to first get to that channel just with one button she mitchell and or ma plus goldman so actually saying that those limitations were inherently disclosed by the references there is a very brief statement about motivation mind i agree with that examiner but the problem is that doesn't that doesn't work for  the for the board because what happened is in the original in the original works decision they then changed to hold they now say we disagree that mitchell inherently discloses the dual command and mapping limitations we with they just say that suggests it and so at that point they had to offer well first of all they'd offer a basis rui those references suggest the limitations and i we believe that they also have to provide a that they're saying you get element a b and c from this reference whether it is by virtue of disclosure inherent disclosure suggestion this reference teaches a skilled arson a b and c that's what they're saying and then they're saying this other reference teaches them the and they give a motivation to combining two references based on their having taught or suggested i don't see and the motivation as i understand it is to provide an easy intuitive way to allow the user to recognise which icon course most of which station which can eliminate guessing i don't see how that motivation would apply equally whether there was a suggestion or it here a teaching or an actual teaching of that element in mitchell orma i don't see a difference i don't see why there's i understand your argument as to why there should be an explanation for how why mitchell for example suggests dual commit i get that there should be an explanation for that but i don't see why they should have to address motivation to convert and once they conclude that all this in reference is still really lead you and parcel would say based on that suggestion the support for that that's why you would combine that with gold but i mean i see your point and the fact that you're just saying there's a disclosure of the limitations or there's a court i just want to pick up on the motivation and combine issues so i think this is just a simple factual error by appellant that can be easily cleared up in the exam or spine or objection appendix page one fifty five the examiner gave us a motivation combined mon mitchell and then that's in the middle of the page and then at the end of the page gives the motivation to combine golding with mitchell ma combination the board we're supposed to evaluate that sharp first with that with the dual command limitation i think it's it's all i will concede it's a little confusing that because i think the board at the outset of the decision finds that mitchell pressing a button and you're causing both the t v to change the channel and the website to learn your remote well mitchell does exactly that that the only i think clone that appellant has is that there's the intermediate involvement of the  box but i don't think that intermediate involvement in the set top box race is the causation because in mitchell you're you're pressing a button you're changing a channel the set top box and sending you back a signal saying load a website and website is loaded interacting with the user interface element would not only cause the remote device to request the media with the channel but also that information related to that program and then it's got this this number sentence a narrow set top box with a number one number two number three so i think that's that's where the board is explaining its its rationale for suggestion where it may not it may not be a direct  a really convincing the problem is i don't read that a paragraph the same way you know that paragraph doesn't say what you just said which is you press the button and both things ultimately happen that's what is missing for me like and what i what bothers me so so i've never seen a boar adopt a suggest language so i'm not sure what to make of it so i started trying to think as a matter of law what does it mean if a reference discloses something inherently discloses something suggests something how should it be treated and i thought like this suggests means i have a disclosure for a five problem four and then there's a sentence in there that said it might be cheaper and equally good to reduce the number of prolongs to that technically disclose a three prong fork no but it certainly suggested that you might want to make a three prong fork maybe even to do proper torque you know that's what's it suggest means to me the reference points you towards doing something i guess that's kind of i'm trying to and i'm trying to get you to help me understand since i've never seen an opinion that uses and relies on the suggesting and it appears so often in this opinion it's kind of confusing to me what should the test be a what does a reference have to do to suggests test because i also couldn't find any fell circuit opinion that ever addresses either though i think this is sort of a variation on what k s r was getting to do with the predictable beast something different than one of the schools and so i think that you're looking at based on what you have in the reference what what and combined with the skill in the art goes everything but one element and then you argue which i've seen the p t o certainly do and we've upheld it that you don't need a second reference that teaches it's common sense it would have been obvious to do so and that's k s r but you always articulate of reason that's the reason you say come at least common sense logic people skills are doing this all the time you say something about it and where i'm struggling is that that feels like what the board did here for each of these elements but without giving me the decision and some more to the idea that you have a reference and it may not be exactly what the claims as but you could modify it or change it to get to the plane and i think that they're saying that in a different way and i think that if you're looking at the mapping are so ideal that before you press the button you know that it's going to lead you to a website and so the the board found that mitchell has that has the concept of mapping disclose so and this is a public speech ten first full paragraph so the board is looking at the mitchell mitchell's disclosure of caching which is just idea that before the websites are loaded their their sect ahead of time to the to the button in the website loads so that before the user presses that button and mitchell the device knows that it's mapped to a specific website because the website is stored on the device and it knows you know that user press button i load this website and that's i mean that's very similar to what's being done in claim on the concept that before you press a button there's a there's a correlation the connection between the button press and the loading the website  and so the board sites mitchell paragraphs sixty one sixty eight which is where this discussion of cashing in having a website based on a prompt button press and a user so there is there is explanation there of what we're looking to and mitchell you know i can see that there's not there's not much further step of us of  from a reference could disclose something a reference couldn't help me disclose something means it's always true it's kind of a hard thing to to earth's going to just some think it that's that's kind of i don't see the board having done any of the kinds of stuff that is permissible under k s r to explain to me why it would be obvious i'm not saying it's not i'm just i'm just really struggling with the way this opinion is written at a minimum even if this case gets affirmed can you please am i being deadly serious go back send a memo to everybody in the solicitor's office to never allow the board to write opinions like this i mean for it because it's just confusing and i think that we're struggling with how to understand this opinion and if we do happen to understand it the way you want it to be understood please don't confuse that for thinking it's written well or correctly i mean you're saying then and i think that you can always look back to their supreme court precedent about you know the agency's reasoning it may not be necessarily clear but that but the decision you know provides the pathway there i think that at minimum i mean were there w that there's almost no difference and yes i hear what you're saying so i think that you know while you may find the spore decision unclear i think that at least with this case not and i understand just don't want this to become a new pattern that the mapping there is there is a i just the concept of mapping is in there michel is exactly how it's done in clean one maybe not but you can see how one of ordinary skill knowing what they would there's no real you know intelligence there not no real flexibility like you have mitchell or mitchell you're loading multiple websites per show you're getting websites based on the context of the program not just change all i mean there's just a lot more at the very most i kind of agree maybe it's going to some type of motivation to lie or alter mitchell maybe that's the bush trying to say but if that's the case then it needs to explain why you would modify mitchell to no other questions thank you