copyrighted works appearing on the internet and the way the world was going to stop the some awful copying was by hard stopping and introducing computer wizardry to make it impossible a startlingly different idea rather than technical wizardry to stop the the republic awful republication why not make the licensing of these works this was it this was a very different approach moving to the legal aspect of the case i recently told my son to clean up his room he came back a little while later did not appear to have done it i said well why not  burden some mandate is to interpret it in such a way that you are relieved of the burden that's what the p t o has done in this case the supreme court has so stated that in order to find obviousness in the combination of existing elements there should be an apparent reason to combine those existing elements and the p t o has found an apparent reason in the claim language for that self power point greed making the record available for looked up by anyone from any computer on the publicly accessible network the p t o has found an obvious benefit in that in allowing more people access to the records of licensing to me that sounds very much like the same thing if this is allowed to stand every patent flame bears within its own language the seeds of its own defeat if you can just if the p t o can just reach into that twenty in t explain language alter it maybe slightly and say here's an obvious benefit here's an apparent reason for making this company's just what you said in the cla that should be done with every patent playing virtually every patent claim ever applied for the p t o it has had it has two paths to show obvious they've never made arguments to that extent to get to that point they've never argued that order and we would be the first to admit this they could come it doesn't obviously flow from from making public the records of licensing it takes a subtle understanding of the nature of a human being as a social animal to see that more public record will make it possible for third parties to understand that what they've got in the mail was not a lawful we license to republic other people didn't see that and we've argued consistently from the beginning that this was a novel approach that was a two to four spotting copying that that was not evident obvious at the time it is not obvious to go from to go from making publicly available those records of licensing to yes that will this will stop people from copying we've argued consistently that that is a non obvious step it requires a subtle and deeper understanding of the problem of unlawful republication of copyrighted works and that then the p t o has never made an argument against that moving to a predictable result o has stated that our playing has a predictable result but so does every combination ever meet there are always many trivial predictable results in a complex piece of machinery the end result that the machine really designed for might have been unpredictable but the fact that for example if you move element a that moves element b that's a trivial predictable result and there's always many trivial predictable results if a trivial predictable result will do virtually nothing well it says that this is that if the system does it may permit potential licensees to obtain or be denied authorisation they can ask for an authorization to license but that doesn't mean that a third party could get on there and check out somebody else's license they have some access to the records but it's a very different inspect the records of licenses it's just unclear when they say that potential licensees also have access to the records this day do they do in a sense by being able to determine if they tense license or not whether a license is available they do have some access to the records so if if we if we didn't contradict that point it's just because the point wasn't wasn't sort of against it and never said  ordinary artist been to provide anyone access to these records because it's a matter of just changing the disc what was in the skills was that obvious to do this blows it out i mean their motivation to do it that i understand it was very infringement more broadly is it obvious that allowing access to licenses would necessarily it's well within the skills of an artisan your owner then the standard it's a good reason for that use doesn't make any sense there's a million things i could make right give me a piece of wood and wood shop or could make it into any number who are well within their skill to make it into a chair or school or anything else it's not companies the idea that it's complicated coming up with honor there is the the only difference here is the fact that the claimed invention are cars anyone to have access when that difference is so minor you have to have more than just the idea you have to show that that that minor difference produces some sort of unexpected result or that the industry taught away from it or that there is no reason one expectations of success we don't have any of that here there is no evidence here is any of that to support that easily made and that there's a sufficient rationale that under and that's that's that's a technicality yes the modification usually made just like taking one leg of a chair and making your stool is a modification that any woodworker could easily achieve agreements in order to more efficiently reduce the illegal use and distribution of copyrighted works by allowing a member of the public to have enough information to verify whether work is licensed or not so the examiner made the exact and that that small change has to show when you make that small change you have to show something more than just a fact you can just make an argument that it results in something that no one ever thought of we have to provide some sort of evidence in the form of a declaration for the finding of fact in this matter they never stated it as a finding of fact in the in the proper part of the of the case and they've never supported  any sort of argument with the p t o it is done here is taken the applicant's rationale for the benefit which we have always stated and we've always backed up by argument that this is not an obvious extension they've taken in our own words in the original application and in arguments responses office actions and they've said oh well it's obvious for the factories of that you said that there is a benefit that there's a non obvious benefit but they've never made any argument and they've never had a finding of fact in the in the factual portion of the proof to this extent nor would they have a right to make a finding of fact without an ounce of argument to back it up and we're it is not something that the examiner would do would have the authority to