we have three cases on for argument today and one will be submitted on the briefs the first case is number two thousand and eight fourteen forty six and re siemens water technology and  jane invented where you have separate caustic chemicals operating in a in a single housing in one environment there's nothing in this reference that would that would lead versus going there to think that you could take this system were dissolving particles out of the with water and you could you can implement that with highly reactive chemicals right next to each other there's nothing to say that if you had an adjacent chambers you would have one chemical flowing into the other you'd have all sorts of terrible things going on there that we just don't know about in the reference the reference does not only talks about possibility of subdividing but it also talks about using different washing liquids each serving the purpose of dissolving another gash pollutant yes which is not only that's the language that the reference of uses in contrast jane we have different chemical reactions going on in different stages that this is not this not in significant thing as as the as the p t o would argue in fact modular is fundamental in these early references because they were not capable of within a single unit adjusting to accommodate larger davis is to add more modulus it can accommodate that within the system itself so if you take davis for example i'm sorry if you take trouble x and you start cutting it apart sharing combine unitary system having perhaps advantages of being more compact in size there or there are credit offers either way it's that does that necessarily mean that one chemical through the system in a direction opposite the air flow but it's the same chemical so the ph the chemistry is changing as you go that only gets you so far in terms of what you can do so davis is very different i'm sorry gene is very different in that his system now with with the separate chemicals to separate chemical actions that are going on he is able to treat the he is essentially a priest the pretreatment stage in that first dedicated module that allows him to use for example a less expensive fluid i think the pattern describes it as being ten percent the cost of the other material and let it get in flexibility to change the fluids and change the capacity of the system to be changing needs so it's more than built with the office is doing is looking at the invention and seeing that it uses two chemicals which is not the prior art and three stages and saying well where do we need to get those pieces to put that together it's not a  but i was just curious that's right that's right skill new york to convert modularity into something that unit or drug you know draw a roll around a piece of because it well exactly for the reasons in this case it ignores what's actually happening in the field and ignores the fact that it's not obvious to just make something modula provision where the gas goes up and down and it's contacted by a solution raining down on it what's the reason to combine boarding with her well the examiner came up with several reasons you said to make the system more compact you cross examined right and someone would come in and say no no no there are some other reason to combine and you would work through testimony and trial and you would produce something that would be called a fact and then i could review it up here is a fact firmly united and we think that's perhaps more apt here i think you know you would share walls it probably would be smaller but more formally united is a fair definition of compact is consistent with what you said about simplicity and you see the simplicity if you look at the the prior art references triplex has three modules you have to do interconnections on the sump at the bottom and at the top you have to figure out a way to screw those three modules together whereas a unitary system avoids those interconnections you have t don't know specifically noted you don't have to find it in the reference itself you can find for example because it's stronger cheaper cleaner faster later smaller more durable or more efficient or simple but certainly fall into political which isn't very difficult to overcome in the district or it makes sense to impose a fairly rigorous stand for truth within the patent office for the applicant to show us no somebody would not be motivated to make this combination they can do that was the relatively high threshold we think it's not a bad idea because it forces the applicant before the patent issues to show us why this is deserving of an invention and this is a case in point here we see a lot of attorney argument in the brief talking about all these supposedly advantages and cost savings and all that but that wasn't presented in any kind of evidentiary form before the exam or the board we don't see that any kind of secondary consideration is considered by the court so we don't really have that view but if they bring that to the patent office in the first instance as the standard would require i think that would make for a stronger and i suppose with respect to the factual questions of teaching what the references show and common sense as opposed to the extent that it examiner takes the position that something is a matter of common sense or perhaps a matter of design choice so no patentable consequences the extent that the applicant feels that the patent office has pressed a little too hard on that scale to paint a little too hard in one direction the the applicant can press back and challenge that conclusion with whatever evidence sharee basis  show everything except one little item so the examiner dilemma dilemma so the jammers says well i'm just going to say that that one thing that's missing was just a matter design choice of no patentable consequence period from a patient case made i i think that's difficult i mean i think it may well depend on whether or not he can support his conclusion that that is you know that's the question of a male versus a screw or something like that that might be a design choice that might be supportable but other than that you know if there is an element missing an element into play that's not taught by the prior art counsel but i'm curious to hear you articulate how much you think that passage teaches the city this image council read it already but it teaches subdividing this existing shared so of compartments and it also says suggests using multiple chemicals and that's where that's where i think you may have a different view from your encounter he characterized this is not really involving the same kind of chemical process and therefore not really revealing if i i hope i'm not this characterized as hard and if they're not really disclosing it i think that's that's fair when you look at the specifics of dissolving the unwanted in a gas stream as opposed to using a chemical reaction right to get rid of them i do think the overall teachings of what we are certainly broader than that this is this is simply about how to design one of these units there's nothing in the clean specifically that explains how they've achieved this division of compartments to accommodate the different chemicals in fact there's no chemical agent in a less reactive chemical agent without necessarily saying anything about them being incompatible much less showing how that in compatibility was somehow solved by the way they divided the problem the sauce and if you look at the the change that itself they seem to don't believe so we're just kind of debating this point may be in for the washing fluids are only for the purpose of does dissolving chemical constituents and you might say dissolution is not necessarily a chemical function of it's chemistry i believe it's very close i did a google on this very recently and you know dissolving sugar and water they said it's not a chemical reaction to this it was case in the world to know you can cause grease in liquid that ha t you're saying while a person of ordinary skill in the art would have only looked at the things that are different about oil wouldn't look at anything similar or anything that might or might be