petition like any discussion of rationale to combine and the petition was so generally sloppy that the forward expressed would refuse to consider anything cited in the supporting materials but not in the petition itself because of this once the board decided to and displays the associated information in finding the prime things obvious the board erred with respect to both of those two main components each of which independently once remarked i'm going to trust the display requirement first which is a different display does require display of two sets of information which is the data that previously were cited in the claim as being collected as well as a separate previously stored data and when you look to the mileage on reference that was the board's interpretation of the prior art all of the claims require because what the board pointed to was displaying a single set of data a single set of motion capture data either in real time as you data it does not describe about the data is not the same thing as displaying the data what that paragraph doesn't say that is anything like the display that you are citing in our plans right for the display system for multiple swings since multiple swings occur over a period of time is that sure sounds like at least two data packages the display system for that would seem to be a system for displaying that maybe not on a split screen you're not arguing for a simultaneous showing on a split screen but that the display system x has to be able to show two different data packages right why doesn't that say that it doesn't say because again there's a disconnect between the disclosure that refers to collecting and analyzing the data and separate disclosure that refers to display data to the extent to talks about displaying data it is not talking or at least it hasn't been explained that it's talking this is a post hoc rationalization to the extent there pointing to something in offering explanation that petitioner never offered in the petition any more questions on that particular issue i just want to point out that it's undisputed that the board if applied the incorrect claim construction this is something that we argued in our opening brief and the director had no response to it so the fact that the director that s board was pointing to disclosure regarding displaying information now or worse displaying the same set of data later that's not what the claims require so that merits vacating that aspect of the decision and reminding for consideration under the proper construction and consideration limited to the evidence that cited in the petition and there's a second issue with respect to the display limitation and that's that it's likewise undisputed that the board interpreted my john in a way that was never laptop and a wireless receiver that are connected via serial cable petitioner never asserted that the catcher and the host could be contained in a single cell phone or p d f the first time anyone heard that was in the board's final written  improper for the board to apply a new theory in the final written decision so the minimum that aspect of the decision should also be vacated and remanded so the blast has an opportunity to address to the grieving on evidence including expert testimony but more does that affect the result we were to conclude that these other references in paragraph sixty three and sixty six for example disclose this claim if the if the court were to find the disclosure in paragraph sixty three and sixty six which again were analyzed under an improper claim construction and don't get to the specific display that were cited but if the court were to disagree with us on that point then the picture catcher host doesn't doesn't change that conclusion there are really two separate issues number of strong sites without any explanation so there were a lot of problems but i think at this point it's been distilled down to two understood issues that are dispo this or any other questions on the display look intentional turn to the memory limitation the border areas with respect to the motion capture hardware element provide a second independent basis for reminding you the issue is one of motivation to combine simply put neither the requires wireless transmission the claim requires that the motion capture device include both in memory and radio and not only that but when you look to my john marshall my john clearly says that what we're doing is providing realtime transmission using a is look to we say that's the old way of doing it here are some drawbacks it presents drawbacks that's undisputed by the experts in the case and then says here's a better way of doing it and a better way of doing it includes a microcontroller and a radio but no disclosure of a motion capture device using microcontroller in memory there is absolutely no explanation anywhere so what's your agreement that there is no motivation to combine or there's motivation to combine but it was just not put forward  evidence on that point we presented at least you have pointed toward the board so that those arguments that you made about the disadvantaged weren't sufficient right well but the board didn't even consider one of the two categories of evidence that we presented we provided we presented both evidence regarding design considerations saying that these motion capture devices need to be a streamlined and unobtrusive as possible and that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the article away from adding memory where it's not really relevant to what margins are doing with its real time transmission so the design considerations that are unique to these types of devices was one category that ends and the court did address that addressed it in its time the board  we can get use that say in the meantime i see i'm running low on time i just wanted to point out that we also presented a separate second category of evidence as to why her supporters would not have done this and that goes to the fact that it would not have improved the functionality of we have it so close you know where would we look and starting with an eye and we agree there are basically three elements of that starting with the general system it says you know we don't really need it on board memory because we do this real time wireless transmission but then it incorporates levi reference which has the onboard memory and then it points out in its third environment we can modify or sensor to add storage so i mean it's all right in the reference between the incorporation of the lead and also the reference to the third embodiment and in terms of a motivation that third embodiment which is called the body motion capture environment says you'd add the memory for storage of also referenced and the expert declarations and i think that it of itself states the rationale and as efficient rationale for the combination and then the experts are both parties talk about this lease says you know you might lose your connection you might have a signal you might be transmitting a signal but maybe the club gets too far from the receiver and you lose your was lacking and many respects and as your honor pointed out the court found that they failed to consider teaching way at all in a wholly regarded wholly disregarded other teachings and that reference which would have taught a way so we think  attempting to achieve trying to keep it light but also considering the flexibility of even with a small and light apparatus of having different functions that was considered by the board in terms of the board never considering the fact that it wouldn't be necessary that the board address this argument of whether or not a feature is necessary doesn't really go to the fact of whether of the obvious to combine and it's not really a teaching a way turning turning the ax if your honour's have no more questions on memory to the display limitation which is the other limitation in dispute we do we do feel that there is a claim construction there is a kind of a hidden claim construction issue here which is do you have to have the real time data and the previously stored data displayed at the same time frankly i think the office is a little bit confused about what last position is on that and that is the reason why both the board and the office is presenting evidence under both constructions so if you don't have to display the data at the same time it gets real time data and then late and that some point in time previously stored data we have that explicitly and the reference display the same time simultaneously think split screen so they don't contend that there has to be a split screen so that you can actually compare them right next to each other they do contend that on that screen you have to be able to are stored by the computer analysis and display system so there's so blasted saying you know the office is confusing analysis and display that it's the system goes hand in hand that's what's taught in paragraph sixty six and also whether it's a split screen or not and the multiple user environment and i'm looking at paragraph seventy seven my john says that the instructor is looking at the data from the students at a single glance so that means necessarily that data is being presented at the same time for the instructor i think and the point of dispute if you start looking at the multiple user environment is that that lacks a separate feature required by the claims which is that it's on a you know self or some kind of wireless device that has a wireless receiver combined with a wireless analysis and display and here is where we get to speed up what did the board come up with this theory for the first time and that is not accurate this issue the relationship between paragraph thirty three and mahajan which talks about the wireless transmission and the mobile device and paragraph seventy five which defines what the pitcher the catcher and the host are this is a theme that was really it if you have this issue with who brought it up when and was it brazenness efficient manner before the board came decision bring that to the board for in the first instance say that there is a been a problem you haven't ha you don't feel like you've had a sufficient opportunity to respond but don't you know flag the problem and then bring it for the first time to the support you know to be discussed because what happened was the specific argument wasn't raised in the lacking this speech or are lacking in the mobile device portion and the multi user environment and the petitioner came back and his reply in support of this petition and he pointed to paragraph seventy five would have been motivated to combine references so it goes to the point that i was going to make that i don't think that's a quote f is not strictly about teaching and players also recognizes that even give evidence doesn't rise to the level of teaching when it can still be relevant to reasons that would be disadvantages of the combination reasons that would discourage a person of ordinary  that we presented regarding the failure of the addition of memory to improve the functionality of mileage on that evidence with never addressed in the decision and that evidence is cited in the footnote i believe on page