morning everyone the analysts this morning has the benefit of the participation of district judge amy think eve from the united states district court for the northern district of illinois located in chicago and we appreciate her generous contributions to our work and thank her for doing this overtime work because of course she still has a huge caseload waiting for her back in chicago  that's the steinbach eight nine nine patent today two sixteen is designed to eliminate the danger that loose jack pools which secure rotating parts in machinery such as that finding is confirmed in the following paragraph steinbeck teaches that jack bolts are in danger of loosening in escaping from apparatus used to fasten rotating systems in other words  expressly recites rotation so we have a defined undisputed teaching way in the prior our teaching away from using a particular prior device in a rotating environment where the referent of the super bowl referee that was applied i paid he to twelve states quite clearly when properly forced superballs product will not come admitted to the patent office in the whole world that they don't stay long they don't stay tight for very long in a rotating environment that was not disputed by the war the dispute here is where the border dis qualifies steinbach as a teaching a way because the border believes that our device doesn't operate a rotating environment however if you read clean one it positively recites may well be that somebody somewhere uses a super bowl on a suspension bridge i don't know whether that's true or not but a person of ordinary skill in cloistering are you know was going to put his people underneath these devices as their oyster it would not have been mo combine that with the with the fastener device that undisputedly comes loose in a rotating environment now today you may say well in my opinion that's a different type of rotation well that's an analytic that would would require very thorough consideration that's why i started with the undisputed fact that that it's been described as rotation in vibration and movement the let me give you another example it is stated by the word steinbach comes loose and moving machinery if you look at our my client's marketing materials eighty one ninety two it shows at the bottom moving machine it shows a host moving machine with swiveling poised like that at the top of the page states protects men interior i just don't think i think that there's and that we're didn't dispute that that there's a distinguishing state and the border when in the context of an obvious innocent alice's it encompasses the scope and content the prior are and whether there's under k s r either reason to combine or the corollary principle or is not to those by definition are comp if the proposed combination would be unsafe a person of ordinary skill in the art would not make it there are federal circuit cases holding such i can provide you with cites with the board stated they cited case law saying safety is not pertinent of the combination claim you have at least some substantial evidence to support the conclusions reached by the board even though there may be other statements in these references that suggest otherwise the word nonetheless has substantial evidence on which to do one related view and isn't that a burden that that's virtually impossible for you to overcome yes even if it was steinbach only talks about an occasional boat loosening it's not like it's loosened all the time he just says it occasionally happens it's steinbach would not have been creating a safety device if you felt that his own product didn't work and didn't fast which is c b c s own catalog a one ninety three and this is the catalog that's just describing the sui prior art string and what that says and i think the note is some loosening may develop after prolonged service in a permanent installation it is advisable to periodically retighten the mounting screw to maintain the specified torque value and on the next page and one ninety four number seven it says the same thing torque should be checked periodically  mobile well i'm saying that i don't know if it's exactly equal but they certainly the single quote also talked about bold loosening and they had to take care of it so one of the ordinary skill in the art reading steinbach and say well they can occasionally loosen even under something different under different vibration that would not be a teaching away because they know that these pools can loosen and the way to take care of that is to check and tighten and i guess you could add that in the  language and peterson for the first time that's one eight hundred seventy six column for blind fourteen where it says routine checking of the gauge to see whether it will rotate freely indicate whether additional tightening of the jackal's is required but again that's exactly the same that they were doing with sue in their home and what the function of would be the function of the gauge i guess is for them to be able to determine whether it needs to be tort now if it measured somehow the tension in yes own and then just to talk to a briefly about the long felt need what the board found on that actually was that there was no long felt need that people were happy with this the sunni device they were satisfied  and what do you make of the other two of its strategy hand about focus more on commercial success and the board explained why that was deficient it never showed indexes had never explained that anybody had bought it for that reason  that you know interested parties that it would be slightly skeptical whether or not a party was interested or not but it fully wait a minute discuss the decorations for several pages that had an awful thing think that the board because i think it's very clear from other site that the point did consider it you think the world would be entitled to discount let's say by fifty percent the worth of grounds that author has an interest in the outcome i think what the case law says your honor which we cited some of the cases in her brief i think it says that consciously or unconsciously someone who has an interest in something you know may be saying things differently than if they were completely objective and a court is allowed to consider that some or some people wonder if anybody's completely objective look that's correct your honor but certainly you know c b c it may be that inventor has a greater potential conscious or unconscious bias then other declare but the idea that some declarant have one hundred percent credibility because they have zero risk of fire probably a stretch but i think you're right your honor i think that's what courts do they look at credibility as a whole to take everything into account it's a question whether a declaration criminal interested parties be discounted in some way or is the question really more of whether that declaration because of the interest is deserving of perhaps stricter scrutiny and i think the way you set it right is deserving of stricter scrutiny and i think that's what the board did they took into account interpreted is a good plan to get that it just means to look at it closely not that you automatically discount it by some portion that's correct so if the court has no further questions i'd ask you to affirm that your honor so i'm having a hard time with that and my sense is they would just judge it from the paper and if they had good reasons to say why what the person said was contradicted elsewhere that would be ok does the board ever make credibility filing that i can't remember anything that looked like a district court credibility finding in the face of decorations whether by inventors or third party in all of the cases we get fifty or so of your cases everything we're i don't remember there ever being what tension that is undisputed i would go so far as to say it was an error of law for the board to consider that a strike it was error of law for the board not to consider the actual rebuttal argument present the rebuttal argument presented was not that super bowls are strong the rebuttal argument presented was a super bowls come loose so to disqualify that with a rush response the undisputed response of their strong tight is just simply force visit v the threats jack bolts are notorious for coming loose in the mechanical engineering world and then but that's my opinion there's no wood discussion in the record but what do you how do you