approach left erik's and to ignore the proposed prior art references the fact that they don't all work together the second error was there was no substantial evidence to support the board's finding that a person of skill only art would have been motivated to combine a levy and young euro third eriksson's petition simply ignored the claim element or ban substantially centered at an operating center frequency of the different communication schemes so there was no substantial evidence to support the court's finding that the prior art meets that limitation in your view does the not so much that it's the number of prior art references your honor i think the problem that happened here is that when you're looking at a pair of references and for example in this particular case there were certain claim elements or portions of the claim where erickson was relying on more than one reference and in those situations what they did was they simply had a reason to combine the references for that particular claim element and i think that's where the problem is because there was an assumption that b finding or providing a reason to combine for a particular claim element or a portion of the claim that was enough to show that all of the references could be combined together and so the problem that we had here is that there were four references in the first challenge and if you add there was no evidence whatsoever that a person of skill in the art would have combined all four references together to render the entire cla hub try the scenario isn't that enough to show that if the second third or fourth references combine the evidence of the motivation to buying at that point what more do you need to show what i think for purposes like i'm not trying to say that there is some sort of rule that needs to be followed in every case where there has to be a particular couple and another couple in this and that s what we're saying here is that if there's a reason to combine all of the references to render the entire claim obvious that's enough it's not enough to say i can combine a and b and c and d and therefore a b c and d can go together and the reason for that is that in this particular case we pointed out on appeal is that if you put a and b together then you can add c and d because if you do all together what we're saying happened here is that there were reasons to combine given for particular claim elements but then it didn't result in as a whole all of these references being combin as if your argument today sounds as if you're saying that when you combine a and b they've got to fit together neatly completely everything in a moscow e e when in fact you could modify reference a just to have a particular feature that is  by reference b isn't that right well it's hard to talk about it in the abstract so to answer your question your honor i think it might be helpful to go to the exact scenario that we have here so here there talking about is when you add the primary preamble what they're relying on is they provided a reason to combine yama urines along and what we're saying is that if you put them all together then you no longer have something that works preamble so what we're saying is if you put everything together then you're not going to have the variable be armed with system anymore and so that's what the problem is so here robin here is more a matter of in this particular case the way the clay the prior patterns were combined is problematic not necessarily that the different kind of combinations wouldn't you know the same view be you're you're not arguing that this that in every case there s to identified an argument that it had made with respect to a completely different claim claim eight under aereo said diagnostics when he was improper for eriksson to have provided that information for the first time on a reply  and not in the original petition but more importantly it works and failed to provide any particularized arguments explaining why the motivation to combine for a claimed eight would have been cross applicable so we think under magnum will tools the board can't rely on arguments based on a different challenge without an explanation of why those arguments would be cross applicable here the board can't just adopt arguments on behalf of petitioner that could have been made but simply were not made in the petition so that's another reason why the boards finding should be reversed let's go to the missing claim elements  we pointed out that there were two separate claim elements that were simply ignored by erickson in its mission with respect to claims one in two that's because the petition was so focused on claims eight to twelve and eighteen to twenty two which had claims that were being asserted against certain merits and customers in pending litigation in delaware so that sort of explains why there was such a focus on those claims the problem is by incorporat ing by reference so many of the arguments from claim eight into claim one erickson simply forgot or didn't notice that there were some differences in the claim language so in particular we've pointed out two different claim elements the first one is substantially centered and in operating center frequency of the different communication scheme if you go to petition the petition at ph forty three it's then there are some sites that's all that's not enough because claim playmate doesn't hang out of the different communication schemes language as a technical matter when you're referring to of the different communication schemes and this claim you're referring to happened different different which cept carriers and in the record the preamble provides the antecedent basis for the of the different communication schemes  in this particular instance so it's a variable be on with a stone that has multiple different communication and so it's more than one communication scheme what are the different communications well here what's interesting is on in its petition now when we pointed it out they came back in reply and then they had oh i'm sorry at we pointed out that there was a leak elite as variable communication  schemes however the leave variable communications glooms are not substantially center at a single operating theatre frequency so to illustrate that we have a couple color pictures that are in our  for example of ids appeal brief has color picture that kind of shows what happens at least with multiple communication schemes that but the point is that lead doesn't disclose a way of allocating fat carrier we can continue our savior you know what i good morning it's it's position that the more got to write the properly considering the claims provided a record of that construction and then base their findings of the teachings of the references as well as the motivations to combine on substantial evidence in the record i think i want to go back to something that owner raised which is this element one point six in the evidence surrounding that with respect to the claim moment it's talking about the different communication schemes it's referring by aniseed basis as they recognize to preamble in the disclosure for the communication the different communication schemes is actually found in our section of edition one point zero we say it has different communication skills we can provide a first team were added in a certain number of subjects and then it can switch to a second scheme where it has more sub carriers expanding the bandwidth  is if you look to the pinpoint side and yama europe it says that those narrow control bands are centered within the operator at frequency so the combination of those is provided in the petition and then the particular lies featured from explain further in the reply and there supported by testimony from dr haas in his supplemental petition as well he provided a further illustration sewing exactly how lee and jamira would be combined to have the different communication schemes as well as the narrow vans centered within those schemes but another area i'd like to address is the concept of combine ability of the references as a whole so there's discussion  describes how do you accomplish the initial communication with the mobile device as it enters the system since there are a lot there's variability and has to be some predefined channels that the mobile device will listen to and then you also need to send preamble because all the transmissions from the base station sound like noise unless you can actually synchronize with the base station and that's what claim one is about variable band with some predefined control channels that are narrower than the largest or than the smallest operation channel bandwidth or equal to and then the specific preambles and during prosecution the examiner said it's not enough just to have variable bandwidth that was known having the core band or narrow control channels that was known and it wasn't until the applicant added the specific preamble features that the claim was allowed and these references the long reference in the modem noble that popovic references have preambles with those features and so the combination here levy as that base reference disclosing a variable band with system is very much like in k s are the assign a reference provided that break the break system it provided the structure and then k s are the nine thirty six said you know put a sensor on the pedal and then they use the smith reference and said we'll put the sensor not on the pedal but on structure and then utilize the ricks in reference to move that sensor onto the structure bought a piece of structure that doesn't move so there you have four references all align each modifying the other one to where the location of that sensor would be and ultimately supreme court said that's that satisfactory there's no rigid rule into how he looked lie the reference is it simply requires that motivation or reason to read look look to the references and that's the same as here the lead reference is all about the data traffic it's what happens after communication is established it doesn't talk about establishing that communication it does say that there are typically other channels pre allocated for other controls such as synchronization what what provides the motivation to pick these references and put them together you say they're all there isn't that they're all there or one has a reason to experiment and had things or does does one need an indication in one of the references the reference itself can provide that motivation to say go look the other references to fill this void and the other is is just known that but to a person of skill in the art that you need to have synchronization your mobile device has to synchronize with the base station and so there has to be synchronization occurring before the communication session can happen and with the teachings of li dr haas testified in the board looked at that testimony as well as  itself and said yes there need to be other channels to accomplish that particularly as synchronization issues yummy europe provides us with specific examples of how to accomplish that in a narrow ban described using just a narrow band to get the benefit that the phone doesn't have to decode all the sub carriers it only needs to decode a small set of sub carriers thereby saving battery life and then your assess it within that narrow band let's ha so that we can have secret ization in the preamble should have good correlation properties but it doesn't say what kind of sequences should we send in those preambles so a person skill in the art is going to look to another reference to say ok what are some good sequences to send and in that case looks younger europe here are some excellent sequences there chirp like sequences that have good correlation properties autocorrelation average power ratio and so that's the combination that's being correlation properties a but doesn't provide what with those sequences actually be that you would transmit whereas yama euro is all about identifying optimal sequences that can be transmitted either as pilots at the beginning of  beginning of the transmission and so before that let's say it's a mobile device a cell phone it has no idea what all those ones and zeros and everything flying around it doesn't know where to start so it's looking to identify something that it knows and then once it knows that so it's a known sequence it says aha i found the beginning of the communication now now i can synchronize and make sure that i'm synchronize with the base station and then let me listen to the rest the message see if it's a message from my phone and then continue on with the communication session not the standard of combination taking the teachings of one reference and using those teachings to modify another reference is the appropriate approach we in our petition are not suggesting that we modify the pilot symbols of levy that are within the data channels we are adding preambles in front of the levy communication because the lease system itself doesn't describe judge laurie's question the concern i have here is one of hindsight and going back in and finding obvious not from the point of view of a pursuit of at the time of the invention but but now as we understand the invention and it seems to me you have a lot of separate pieces that are being brought together in order to combine you combining the various  references and i'm not i'm not completely satisfied that the board has given us a and not a quick explanation as to why all the pieces together work or why that exists on the right you're on i think in this situation it's that the references themselves to make an operational system based on the teachings of lee one needs to have this initial communication complementary to build the system it's not as though you're taking one and subbing in something else removing pieces you're simply trying to build in our petition build the operational system by the elements that are acquired as known by a person of skill in the ar but again i did want to address the claim construction of the court you have a couple of minutes left ok you're are they were they raised the concept that the board got the claim construction wrong on substantially not wider the board found that not wider means equal to or less than a plain and ordinary meaning it's their position that using the word substantially somehow takes away the equals to means that it has to be significantly less than that simply just it's not supported by the specification there's no reason for such a narrow construction in it's also contrary to what they told the patent office to obtain that that they told that off substantially it is a word of approximation and it's in there because their tolerance isn't v er the entire claim yes second with respect to the discussion about other channels in league if you go to only at appendix seven thirty two column five around line blank thirteen is where the board said well you know here's the lever our friend says that there are typically other channels pre allocated for the exchange of control information and then they gave it as an example uplink and downli control now the problem here is the board actually agreed with i v after the hearing go to eighteen the board decision the board acknowledges that leave does teach uplink and don't like control so in other words if uplink and downlink control are already elite then why would you look elsewhere and that was precisely our point there that's there there is really no explanation if  already has that information why would you look outside going back to claim element one point six mr low's talked a bit about dr hasse's testimony regarding why lee and jani europe would be put together for purposes that different communication schemes best signal to noise ratio when doing its lesser allocations so how would you force that to be proportional like when euro the other point i wanted to ways is i think judge sol you  if you look at figure five a seven forty nine the narrow band is actually in the in the five b under the guard so it's not it doesn't have to be center so that's an incorrect assumption the court again i think it says a core band substantially center at the upper it centered at the operating center frequency is defined as a frequency segment that is not greater than the smallest operating channel bama so why isn't why isn't their construction consistent with that that's exactly the point your honor that's the definition of corby and so of course me and it covers not greater than which is less than or equal to when you add the word substantially not wider that aren't in any of the just an claim want it's a limitation there it has to have some meaning so if you're saying the core band has to be substantially not wider the core band shouldn't mean the same thing without substantially not wider modif