burden of showing the obviousness of claim one based on a chemical and allport the board's decision that are missing six significant factual findings regarding just closure  limitations and also on the motivation of combined so i think it it applies both ways to even if the court were to find that the full court decisions incorporated every finding of the examiner the decision still is lacking and the board still did talked a little bit of motivation issue ok yeah that's that's a pretty easy one if you can go to you there's no doubt that the the board never even discussed that i can take you to lead initial decision to fifty eight through to sixty three motivation combined is never even discussed the same with the with the ricky rehearing decisions reference but more importantly the a later limitations the selection limitation and the pre programmed sequence limitation are also not disclosed because you get what you believe the examiner and the board did is just read the claim kind of in a vacuum just talk about the data the st and nd data that's not enough what this claim to acquire says you have a web server you need to take the st data which has to identify multiple control products control devices we don't even think that was shown by chemical because in chemical what you're doing is you're just clicking on one device a listing of a device and you just downloading the gui for that device ok so that's not disclose secondly the  select from a database a preprogrammed sequence so more instructions that have been preprogrammed and what that does is that that's allows multiple devices to be controlled for a certain activity or multiple activities actually so we don't think if you look at the fortune decision you look at the exams to shoot they don't even they don't even address that that selection step they don't even address the pre book program sequence step so we would say that the examiner in the board's decision completely lacking and in showing disclosure of all the claimed limitations i did want to get to the motivation to combine those because i think that's also extremely insufficient if you he says it would have been obvious to one very skilled we are to modify the system of chemicals disposed by all port because this provides for a flexible and adaptable remote control device that can be configured based on various uses preferences and control options there's no reference to discussion of those two other limitations is at one hundred and forty five dollars and that's the selection and the preprogram sequence you can see there they don't there's not even a there's no real disclosure of any of all the limitations and didn't didn't show a motivation combined choirs basically very some are some merely talks about motivation combine of voice multiple limitations and just very clear that  the point really is that there's no how and why on the motivation to buy nothing whatsoever that that's very clear from the from the final office action that the examiner just summarily talks about remote controls in general and says there was obvious to combine the two references and that's just not enough based on the court's teachings again also in suppression of factual findings regarding just closure of the combined pr body to incorporate the facts hiding bodies findings and that's exactly what the board did here so they incorporated the examiner so there's not the word incorporate bird thought and my understanding is that this court's precedent does not require specific magic rules but they do indicate that they are lying and agreeing with the examiner is rejection certainly and in the middle of that page they say we do not find appellants arguments persuasive and agree with the examiners findings then they quote the claim and cite the final action pages five through seven sentence of the st full non quote paragraph they say in our decision we cited to the final action for the relied upon teachings to stress the to address that speeded limitations citing to the papers i just talked about and again citing to the final examiner and this court said that that was considered adopting the examiners rejection so there's not a magic word that needs to be used as far as we incorporate or we adopt but based on this court's precedent i believe saying we agree with  out where each of the limitations was disclosed and they provided additional detail and then the board adopted that provided additional detail in response to the arguments and the examiner also provided a motivation to combine the references which was not  and the user is given a choice to that's talking about the user's preference it then goes on and talks about all port which is a nd reference and talks about the control options that they want to use and then that ends that whole entire discussion ends with  disputed by appellant on appeal to the board we just mentioned that in our opening brief and they did not point to any place as a reply brief where they disputed the motivation to combine so that this was insufficient said that more was needed and there there's a few words missing i would say based on various user's preferences or missing an ass on the word provides however i believe that the while not completely clear the past can be easily discerned by what the examiner was saying that you can get the idea why this was the motivation and again this was never disputed before the board as appellants council pointed out this was stated in the rejection which he pointed to before the final reduction and then this was cited in the final rejection it was not mentioned at the reply in the appeal brief it was not mentioned in the reply brief all they argued was that if you combine them it would lead to something different they never said there was not a motivation to combine who was aboard point must correct that's correct or honest both your honor both the past can be discerned of what the rejection was and taking all three decisions together court but the idea is that that's the process that happens you appeal the kind of objection to the board the board may not as up to completely and there's many cases that they do not and the board either reverses or provides additional explanation and they don't so that's different here there was a motivation to provide but in that case they came all the way up to this court and the court said no there's no motivation to go back that would be why there still is a motivation not come not intended to come to this court by the examiner and it's very clear from the reference itself and with respect to the fact that a user selects one appliance out of that there's no exclusion in the claim language and user involved that a user can be involved in fact  with examples of a user selecting different options there's no exclusion on the user selecting the server the web server just has to use it in some fashion and here they use this st data this list of appliances by was a physical combination they were the board was trying to modify a pushing device to make it a polling device and the only analysis was that one would be capable of doing so that is not the situation here the examiner did not rely on mere capability without explaining how such non intuitive physical modification would be made here they combine two very well known pieces that are both directed in that that that that generally is true is true but i think that our case law is very clear that that's just saying you would just look at other art it's not enough you need to you need to actually detail  the factual disclosure findings and we made that clear in the brief it's not just if i could just summarize what they're really saying is what the the examiner says over and over again the board just adopts is well one piece of art has the ability for you to just so lacked a product to be controlled and another piece of art has the ability to program an activity that's it that's really all they talk about and they say the entire claimed invention is obvious based on those two disclosures ok that's not enough if you actually look at the claim this is a much more complex claim that has is very interested and has laid the limitations and i say that because i still don't believe chemically even just in discloses multiple devices we're talking about a system where you can basically program an activity that's going to control multiple devices and multiple