proposition and most recently this year a few research and also case are this matter of obviousness law and then the third point is that even if even if c g i been plus a question mark were required five document is the one that talks about the remapping in the directories but says zero about whether that would affect block ability or on block only other words you can you can remember the directory so you can change the names of some things in the document certainly stands for that proposition but there's no evidence in the record in that document or anywhere else that that affects walkability the only evidence that there were so i guess all over evidence just what the standard default is the only thing they have on their side is the ninety six textbook and their experts but i mean we're dealing with a rowing target i mean this is this is computers gotta have been months can be a real long time if you would if we took fifteen months to get out of this opinion what you would think it was a long time when you weak we find it persuasive there stuff a massive gap in logic there that going from we've persuasive without even trying to explain how you get from week to persuasive and as a matter of are a reasoned decision maker acquirements the board has to not only find the facts and a fast moving area but what that means is that as new problems present themselves that the existence of methodology is still in the are may well properly suggest solutions as well in other words the nature of the new problem it will suggest a solution so when it's fast moving it's all the more reason to wonder whether it's really inventive genius or innovation or just application of known techniques to a new situation which is why if there's ever an area we're going to say the long that this court has recognized it can be the most important persuasive evidence and are the board's underlying findings the only thing that is strong strongly as opposed to them or some worse weekly is contemporaneous invention by others that other people it's a part of the first act your point is moving fast that other people are developing similar solutions at about this or for more about the same time to the point where the evidence of industry standard is that there were lie on the  time suggesting that it is just the application of ordinary skill using known techniques to address a new problem in a recent yeah i'm sort of thinking out loud with the hardware walk into hardware quality google revealed but one way rational and if the evidence of objective additional strongly suggest lack of invention then that also ought to be you know considered as part of the overall that you know obviously the balancing of the relevant factors under the sports recent cases that's not the case is supported by substantial evidence and i submit that it is there are a number of pieces of substantial evidence which the board expressly relied on one of which was dr elmer aust declaration  carefully i think this i can't is an expert i know we of course dispute whether or not dr mr kant meets the requirements for a person of ordinary skill in the art the board found that they didn't that it was close enough explains that if you use it it will be gassed and the w three c publication shows it because it shows they don't have to use c g i then any question mark in the request itself so i submit that that substantial it to the disclosure that they say a structural element so a structural element could be made of metal metal could be magnetic meaning that you could magnetize it so that means structural elements are either magnetized or not does that mean depends on its syntax and there's a wide variety of syntax that can be used only a small subset of that would be on cashel so when you're looking at a reference like angles which is completely silent on the question of cash ordinary skill wouldn't assume that the mere mention of a c g i script is enough to disclose on block of the west and judge still i'd like to address your question about whether or not this court me reach unlike what google says it's not the case that there was a finding that the object in addition are weak in their entirety and clearly there was a finding and the evidence shows that the money was actually fairly acute and existed for at least fifteen months so the wall street journal in new york times articles show that this was a need that people knew about and cared about and it was affecting the industry this was a fast moving industry i'm not sure that it i mean they say it may be  k i used i use that phrase here opposing counsel as well i'm not sure it is weak i agree with that iraq i i for one thing i think you're looking at multiple independent addition in dishing here and a number of pieces of evidence can add up to be strong even if individually they're not as strong and i think that's the situation here you've got a number of separate pieces of in disha that each one shows that there was a long felt need or was an industry praise or  adoption and together they had up to something fairly strong in particular there's an argument that somehow this was attributable to mash logics p r well matchlocks it was a small company at the time and lots of small companies release press releases just two points one is in terms of your question again about you know the genesis of two at a minimum it ought to be obvious to pick that one of the two that would work and again with angles the idea is to try to custom advertisement which means when you know there a then the second thing is in service of the get request is for him as as an additional ground because after the board valves the fact that angels had to get request it was then at a minimum arbitrary capricious not to go on to consider that especially since the evidence shows that if anyone has a standard get request it's going to have a question mark and it's going to have c g bennett we know that first because the whole point to get requests and i think this is on the record is that you get requests to use a question mark key sent x followed by