innovation is limited technologies and there we concluded that custom media in that case and forfeited its a point of clause challenge on the basis that it did not raise any green we have the same situation in this particular case an ordinary person of gil often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patterns together like pieces of a puzzle i believe that that reflects on and dortmund of chaos ours approach to looking at obvious drive what is there is not prior art you are setting up a dual system where the accused infringer can be read can be found infringed for specific details that are present only in the specification but not in the claims and that prevents a fundamental injustice of the system the scope of the prior art should not be narrower in scope in the scope of what can invalidate that potentially the obvious analysis is not narrow in its concept and it should focus objective only on one of the only art and what is claimed as opposed to being subjective of what the inventor himself specifically what the board did here they looked to the specification for as they said the subjective belief of the inventor and what they have believed was his invention as opposed to looking at the objective claims and what they're directed to and we believe this is legal error there is no there's no basis for direct for further constricting the scope of prior art narrower than what cans are provides in the scope  and not about new arguments essentially what happened is we asserted it was obvious there was a finite number of solutions notably to this point no one has identified any more than really the four finite solutions both both up and down both side to side chips they simply said in chips in general and then properly in reply we came back and said no if you look at even keeled reference to get we're not asserting his interest vittori but here it contradicts and simply replies to their statement that it doesn't exist anything in the art where any chips have been placed in a plane will formation and that was the purpose of the reply it wasn't to put in a new argument about you know that this is a teaching of the pinwheel in the context of memory chip question i don't believe it's essential obvious question here honor because if you look at the reason the borg came to that conclusion is by looking at you know the test for now they start in the mind what is recently pertinent to the problem if you look at the institution decision the border originally found that the the geometric patterns are called in tiles manesar they're just geometric patterns of small rectangles the geometric patterns in the in the bridge reference were recently had kept the problem correct and said that the problem was directed just the geometry and then it reset different factual finding your honor i would i would definitely agree that is when they're pretty but they're factual finding is premised on an incorrect evaluation of the and here you have a limited number of top and bottom and there is no  for the placing of chips on a board the tile fitting problem and that would be within the knowledge of a person of skill in the art ultimately what you're doing whatever you place chips on a board as you're fitting rectangles into a confined would have this knowledge is hypothetical knowledge within their head already and so the question is when they look at that through but that's if it's analogous if it's not an hour decision that she issued then the question is you know should it have been a set and if not why respect to the issues in this case the claim one is in fact represented on page forty of the red green you argue to be to keel nor any other prior reference teaches memory chips in a row with alternating creations on page eighteen of the great great king from kingston says your argument since the far for the hypothetical obvious and inquiry too high by requiring evidence of actual artisans having confine references so that you confuse in his patient with and i'm not saying that they could have shown obviousness i'm just saying that they didn't if there's nothing else i'll just make a few brief points i think your honour's questions in opening were addressing a lot of the issues that  yourselfer who's going to go to home depot and then play bathroom tiles in their home and the questions you ask yourself is what a memory module designer at samsung or intel or one of those companies where they go to that reference to solve this problem i don't think so if you look back at the last eleven years of cases what you see is rulings that are consistent with cas are they just don't use k s r as the basis for example they rely on the specification but as we pointed out in the seven to eight of our great br that's the same scope between the specification and the claims there isn't there hasn't been a case that we've seen where this issue specifically of having a difference in scope between the specification the claims was that issue and in fact recognizing this won't require wouldn't require change any of the prior tases that were cited it simply explains in a situation where the scope of the claim is broader than the scope of the specification is that the castle rule applies so it doesn't require changing what happened in the past i do believe that there is a sliding scale in the amount of disclosure and and evidence required to make a simplistic geometric argument regarding obviousness to try and that an argument made in the opening brief it would be be obvious as we've noted that there has been no more and for patterns identified by either the board or hilarious in this case certainly when we were called placing rectangles and so the question for the borden was whether or not that mere arrangement of parts where you only have so many ways you can do that even playing with bricks on a patio  specification defines a term and in the claim in such a way that a particular wiring would be required to practice that claim i'm indeed i expect that this you know goes back to litigation that players were taking the position that regardless of whether or not the signals arrive as soon as possible the track blanks are short as possible that in memory module infringes by virtue of solely its geometry and so the