we all are in the right place today right we are indeed sas institute for consideration of the non instituted anticipation ground on if we were to hypothetically if we were to agree with you on claim seventy nine there is nothing left that is exactly my second point but we don't think a real man will be necessary here because the board made an analytical error in treating claims seventy nine it and it is a quote used to select the roadmap that is displayed requirement to claim seventy nine appears not only in that claim limitation or even in the claim itself and when that legal error is corrected the record compels a finding of obviousness because the dollar reference disclose it's the selected at least one section that limitation the board so earlier on the process and you're saying it's the way it's or actually i think it's more fundamental than that because i think if you look at step forty runner all it says is that you have to produce information containing the image data in accordance with said graphic fi which is to be applied to a display panel doesn't even say it has to be a map you could very well be worse but the point is that an additional limitation of selecting the map for display was created and applied no fewer than  and i can go through those with you from that page as a thirty seven and a thirty eight of the board's opinion if you would like but i can show you every time and this was not included at all in the institution but it made its appear large part because somehow or another a comment that google made in its petition about the de gama reference itself and what it disclosed that was at page fifty of the petition which is one seventy four of the appendix somehow or another that comment about the gama about how the mesh map number is selected so that the correct rectangular map to vision is displayed that morphed into a clean limitation but what if if we agree with you that the boa worn in the in the order after the grant of an inner part his review that this the response was the time to put your defenses up and the only defense that they put up with regard to this limitation was the limitation that or the argument that this had to be a line it had to be a line instead of something that was more dimensions than just line they said each section having a line shape our view this case is exactly like the owens corning vs ask bill case that we cited in our brief there's only one possible evidence supported finding here in the board's rejection of google's challenge when the correct construction is applied is not supported by substantial we still have to send it back or not because because as we showed in our brief correct the claim construction with regard to the section map limitation that's it for claim seventy not that was the chief judge process question to me starting out you don't have to send it back on the ground if you agree with us and you apply own scorning versus fast felt claims seventy nine it's done that's it there hasn't been a contrary argument automatically all of the other grounds they didn't institute or that if we invalidate i mean will that if you and then i'm going to move to the route information claim sixty four seven ok and i realize i have limited time to do that so with what is there is a fundamental difference between the invention here and all the prior art that you're going to see in this case in the next case what the invention is here is the the idea that you can create a map by super imposing two maps on each other one that is a time variant map and the other is a basic now like the standard geographical map you won't find anywhere in the prior art this notion of taking nap that's time variant and superimposing it on another map and all of these claims are directed is to send the time variant nap and then it is superimposed locally on the time invariant now which is like a basic geographical map with with roads and things like that another embodiment is where you send traffic information and time variant data that is used to create the time in variant map which is in turn superimposed that is what claim seventy nine is about so claiming and that is why selection is so important here and i'm going to explain so in claim seventy nine you have this time variant data like your traffic information and that is sent to some receiver the receiver takes that time very information and it creates this time variant map that's why it's you have this map identifier is taking the section map that section map plus the time very data is used to create the time variant  storage and then it takes that information and it superimposes one image on it there is no creation of the time variant map and that's why we heard the question is well what about the screen construction issue if it's right or wrong the pet the the board separately found there is no time period nothing to gollum let alone selection of an ok so we don't even have the time period now that that is a big difference ok because what happens with when you only have your basic math that's in memory and i realize this is highly technical and all you're doing is superimposing an image one at a time you don't have the same flexibility and data structures are totally different so how do you divide the information in the in in the processors is totally different and that's why what is disclosed here and claim here is still power the board seized on this when they recognized that what good god does is did allah doesn't there's no map selection by any of the information that creation of that first layer in ghetto while the only thing that link number does is just says here's where you put this image that's all it is the the map is selected in regardless of whether or not it's a place the only display into the slot the second step there's two elements to that first of all the board didn't put display in there the board is simply reading the claim as it is ok and we explain in our brief how when you are taking the time very information you're taking that selecting a map and then you're going to have a component there's only one thing you can possibly do with that which is to overlay and display so it makes no sense to say that there is in this way and the question is is there a selection the final decision of the board was that there wasn't even a selection and the reason there isn't a selection is because a selection has to happen it's not just an identification identification and selection are t claims do require display because it and we walked through this in the brief because there's the only thing you can do with a selected map is to display it so when the board was talking about sway again they admitted that display was in their it's it's it's not it's not it doesn't answer the question because the question is is the map that's being selected displayed and if you follow through and we walk through this in the brief it says ok we're going to select a selection map that's elect map has a component which is time variance that produces a graphic file so that graphic file is the section map plus the time very information which must be displayed there is nothing else you can do it and that one other ground the patent office in its in its in its institution decision made very clear there was no reasonable likelihood of success and you don't and you do not have to institute and we have a procedural issue here because you do not have to whether or not remains here you should not remain because we already have a finding if there's no reasonable likelihood of success if this appeal is under seven of six then the question is whether any remain and would be above prejudice that is harmless error in seven  there would be a second appeal and if you read p d s or even in the any of the other cases that they cited it's very clear that we're trying to discourage piecemeal appeals here so the time to to address that issue has passed you don't even get one of the claimants one of the claim ounces missing which is the receipt of the actually be designated state and the reason why that's missing is because this whole concept of superimposing that is in neither prior art reference and how the board got there is obviousness where you actually would have found an appeal to finding obviousness were a red prior art reference was structurally modified and then combined with another reference in order to find obviousness that requires double we do not rule on whether a different conclusion might be warranted in the case in which a party has sought sas based relief from us that's the case we're asking for cessation as for the rebuttal on claim seventy nine my friend posed the question is the question is is the selected bat being displayed it isn't and it's not just two steps removed she should proceed it's actually about seven steps because the way the claim read you start by selecting a section and then that section map involves sections that section each section of that section map has a component each component has to have an attribute that is designate attribute in turn has to produce a graphic file the graphics file then has to be used to produce image data and then the image data step seven has to be applied to the display panel and that image data isn't necessarily a map as i said before it could be any type of image data that's not what the claims require my friend rent far away from the notion that the board had inserted in additional limitation you didn't answer are six different times rather pages appendix thirty seven thirty eight the board inserted this additional limitation so we are at the very least intended to remain but we also think that because of the board's findings because of the unrebutted expert testimony from d michelson you'll notice that their expert mr cole didn't even address claim seventy nine to address the other two claims that we'll talk about in a moment but he didn't address claim seventy nine at all so there is no conflict in expert testimony this like the fast felt case it's like building vs protect the holdings of the board in the undisputed testimony show that really is only one correct outcome year with regard to claim seventy nine now as to the other claims  my friend suggested that this would be some sort of breathtaking case if you were to affirm because of the modification of a prior reference to start self if i remember correctly and i  an obviousness of the supreme court well and this court in cases like class co which is cited in our in our brief make very clear that the flexible approach does not require the sort of puzzle pieces approach where this one has to fit in perfect so i think that this court's decisions as well as k s are show incorrect the notion that my friend has been arguing that you can't modify a prior art reference in this way and when you take away that that legal that claim of legal error of this case becomes a substantial evidence case and there were gave two reasons supported by much substantial evidence as to why one would combine in his ronnie i'm happy to go through those with you but there in our brief court furthermore had ample substantial evidence supporting why the elements that the board thought were missing from his ronnie were suggested by cauchy are and that's that can be found in the board's decision at believe pages twenty seven and twenty eight and it's supported by our experts declaration which was found credible over their experts declaration paragraphs eighty one eighty four and eighty five along up so unless the court has further questions on the cross appeal we're happy to rest on the argument already given and on  example ok in class go which you had is is a case they had to a caller id case and all of the elements of the claim were in one particular element and that the only thing that was missing was a speaker that does two functions and in another prior reference we had a speaker that did two functions so when you combine those two things together you got the whole invention so all you had to do was take the function of the speaker that was  in and remove and modify it according to what the function already was in the first priorities that is standard and that it's just like ok here we have something totally different because here you need two suggestions to get there here you have to modify the reference and even when you modify the reference and you combine the modified reference with because ronnie you still don't have the ref you still have the matching you still have to do further modification to get there that's this double suggestion inference on inference so there's no question that k s r says yes you can do a modification what chaos r does not allow you to do or at least has not been done is to do hindsight analysis and when you're doing double such double layers of modification that is i have to i need us i need a suggestion not just to combine but i need a suggestion also to modify the reference and when you modify the reference and that still doesn't get you the invention when you combine them and you need further suggestion in order to get to obviousness which is what happened here well at that point you might as well open up obviousness to any type of hindsight reconstruction that you want because then it doesn't matter what's in the prior art you can just take whatever's in the prior art modify it as you see fit