twenty seven were obvious and specifically whether step three which is an claimed one there's a corresponding element in the claim twenty seven was obvious and claim three just for point of reference step three excuse that's my point no one had put these together before your honor in this combination and when we did have one that were put the get of the combination of these decades old techniques what happened there was a missing element and so how did the board plug that hole and that's really the ish but then it was not inspected with or whether unexpected results your results weren't expected well you're under no no one else had done this before in either line of arc in this combination before and what the board was a routine design trick but your honor to get your question it's not a routine design choice in never existed before in these decades all are it's not what a person of ordinary skill brings to the issue in the proverbial toolbox because it never it's undisputed why because there's not one recycle in the combination but two to recycle streams your honour's one going from the from the decanter to the distillation the other going from the the placement of an element is a design choice doesn't equate with harvest and that's what we have here all dark which together in a way no one did before we solve the issues that the poor at that border say needs to be addressed by a person of ordinary skill with that combination and then we plug this hole this missing element by merely saying it's a design choice and so i submit your honor the keep this is a key case for the bar in for the for  so if the order to go back five and ten years later and say well you know these are combination of art and then this missing element which was inventive and according to the office when they issued the path is not an obvious design choice the question becomes how far from take that and what is going to be the the record here was just simply around or we have a generic need for water recycling and therefore this would have been an obvious design injuries because there's a less than if it is a number of possibilities that that's really what we have there's no refer to the analysis if you look at a fifty eight fifty  nine above why they never addressed the combination solving the issue they never addressed the why this would be a simple design choice other than theirs it's just a generic need and the next case before the writers maybe there's a generic need to not saying that at all there are but that's certainly a factor if it if this has been around for so many decades why hasn't it been done before right that's certainly one factor that is not the sole right you're not arguing that off but it gives you the context to look at this record to say well wait a minute were were clutching together two disparate systems albeit systems that have been around for decades in a way no one put together before and we're doing it to recycle water and then we solve the besides saying that he has in the end before what i would draw the line your honour's and i think and i think that is precisely the need for this case is to say if you're going to if you're going to invoke design choice patent office in  the trial be clear be concise and go through in the final fashion and give this court some meaningful review when the line would be give me details facts for example in this case if there was a detail factual record where the board went through and said this expert said you would have done this or you would have moved this part you would have made these choices and you were done for these five different reasons and we attack those that are below last we'd be in the land of substantial evidence and we'd and again i go back to the cuts fourth decision this is very similar just came just came out about two weeks ago and the court said there just because you can combine mechanical out of its old elements and say something the placement of the of an element is design choice doesn't make it obvious you need to put some rigor into your opinions if this were a district court case they have no doubt that this form would reverse because we're used to seeing detailed records of findings of some judge or emotions in the like here when you look at a fifty eight fifty nine it's one paragraph and it just you can see the hindsight stream if you will that no pun intended looking at this  of course it would have been obvious in hindsight to do this as a design choice and so i guess what i'm submitting to you is a long way of answering your question or third needs to be a line on taste or legally what constitutes a design choice but how that statute is being applied through the prism of chaos and chaos or i would submit your others beings being stretched too far and too fast without a factual basis and so that's exactly what happened here is they invoke a design choice that this was a routine design choice that this by the fact that it never existed and why should we depart from a solution that already was that that we solve the problem we set up for and we're all supposed to go back to the board supposed to go back to two thousand and seven as a person of ordinary skill and at that time one of my face to face with this this issue of water recycle in a kluge ng together they're stored in at the end a missing element but why am i going to that missing element when i've solved the issue and if i'm if the board's going to get to that missing element tell us why other than just the conclusion it's just the naked conclusion your honor of it's generic water recycling and it's a finite number  everything design choice but i think it's a fair reading from their statement that's what they're talking about someone skilled in new york would have been padlocked my point is your flood of elevating those words as a lead to be a legal standard and challenging that question to satisfy that that issue and so if you're going to depart from the solution if you're going to modify that solution articulate why other than just the circular reasoning that there's a generic recycle we want to generically save water it needs to be more english reference which says you would send the water back to the fermentation unit in order to maintain a water balance there's testimony from an expert by a declaration deposition that says that this is a very small number of choices back to the system in that column for lines thirteen three twenty five but there's this is this is the prior process that also says this is referenced as a suitable for the production of pudong which is obvious to make that change but he was saying that it is experience in his experience that looking at this type of system this is a page a seven hundred forty eight he says that lot of i think i think it's maybe of interest that much of what is relied upon in the appeal by the painter is trying to undermine the testimony there's no further questions thank you and it already solved the issue and in council really friend the issue of water recycling system those two combinations do that there's no dispute about that and they both run directly and indirectly through the fermentation so the nub of the issue is how much are unit when no one's done it before and this is a disparate arc and we've already solved the issue and then finally i thought it was interesting your honour's about the their expert in your interview you hit the nail on the head is that the stammer that you could in retrospect and there's a finite number of options and that's what i was saying where you are this is what my case would be added another data point like cuts for all of how far is scarce or going to be allowed to be applied from a