going to ask some questions to clarify for myself of both you and your opposing counsel i just want to stay out of some parameters first that the parties dispute whether the relative  obvious to proceed or to replace the old way or integrating that subtracting calculation in the prior with a new way i e subtracting then integrating calculation is that correct it's correct and so far as the premise we do we do reject the notion that there's anything such as a new way or a way we believe it's just one way it's all so yeah if it all adds up to the same result you say it's the same thing yes you're ok thank you let me start that the board here missed is that is the importance of tolle as essentially conceding that the reverse order of steps as represented by claim six is obvious over the prior art and they have not appealed that finding to substantial evidence in your blue braver's in the opening standard or review section no where else do you challenge whether substantial evidence supports the p t s findings your honor we do we do we testimony at appendix seventeen of the of the of the boards analysis they rely on one that's not the same thing i didn't ask you whether you thought you had evidence which could support a decision the other way testimony to a conclusion it's unsupported they were therefore critical pieces of evidence that the board ignored and reaching into is finding one that had appendix eight thirty nine dr gray was showed using developer reference that said admitted according to their expert works better your honor that's correct and that's that's correct but that the board we think it's critical of the board did not rely on that testimony from the extra there's nothing in the board's decision crediting that opinion of the expert the board's decision does not come out and say that this ordering of steps really results in some improvement over the prior art and as a court is well aware under administrative law principles this court can only a for the board decision on the basis that the first on the basis of how the board reached its conclusion under and really well is the same basis or is it just looking at different evidence that is in the record that supports the board's decision i'm not sure this is a briefly and usually brief the that the conclusion that the board reached was that our experts testimony on motivation essentially was on support but it would be in our view respectfully improper just as tellers explained in in the red brief seventeen through twenty two and you're well aware you're opening brave discussions with numerous materials that are not in the record that you admit you attempted to supplement we didn't i do that and you have it in the record why shouldn't we award sanctions when you deliberately relied upon material outside the record your trial that's in effect a concession that opposing counsel should get their fees on those aspects of the case no your honor respectfully i think the statement is so outrageously contradictory that it was proper for us having discovered it to put it in our opening brief we to elvis position the board didn't require that to prove that math generally applies to motion tracking rather the court found that all that failed to prove its contention that the claimed invention can be obtained by applying elementary math to the prior art what about my five questions i asked in your honor i tried to write down ok then i'll go through at the same time but if you could restate them it would be easy as the parties dispute whether the and the new way is simply a reordering of step writing that we think that the record is clear that in fact there are different steps associated with the old way and the new way and in particular the new way omits enables to replace the old way with the new way that's correct with the cabots i mentioned if we thank you where'd you argue that the old is titled petition to misunderstands the breakthrough of the one five nine patent and the new functionality it enables and there is an express reference to our response to dr gray was arguments and we certainly did did not and tend to distort anyone's testimony on the record and then i'd like to make the point that that this case really didn't hinge on any particular thing that dr gray well said during his deposition  gray was admissions during his deposition make the point most clearly but the real problem is that there is no evidence or support in the record for dr gray walls opinion that the old way is mathematically equivalent to the new way does the admission of other changes testimony no it does not it is my understanding of the term other in the context of his deposition it is other than his declaration and other than the calculus textbook upon which he relied which is and time calculus by and talk that's my understanding of what other me thirteen inclusion of that language what it cost you your honor in terms of just that language and i don't have a number here today we're happy to provide you know substantiat in terms of not just the number of votes but our records to support what number we would provide if the court wishes the you know the reason that we that we included that in our although i understand the delegate argues that they've made their arguments in good faith their arguments are fundamentally based on our allegedly bad faith activity and we found no support for that in the record and that i want to get back to george wallace question regarding other because i want to make clear that you know regardless of what dr gray while meant by the term i think the fact remains navigation equations in three dimensions he also admitted that quote altitude information in three dimensions can no longer be obtained by simple integration of the measured term rate and of course the elementary calculus textbook is all about simple integration he ought he he also testified that he did not reference any publications that quote actually show the application of the sum and difference property of integrals to the navigation equation of the old way answered as the board stated the petitioner element here quote fails to establish beyond a preponderance of the evidence that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the sum of indigos princip to obtain claim three claim three is a new way claim so what the board rested its decision on was not the lack of output evidence of general of math to this problem but rather the the lack of support for applying this basic mathematical equation to the prior art and arriving at  case which are measuring angles they're basically gyroscopes that are taking measurements over discrete periods of time say every tenth of a second they're taking those angles and and then they're summing up those changes and angles over time in this case that the so called overlays equivalent of the so called new work and that's because as you're summing up these differences in angles between the one sensor on the tracked object and the one sensor on the dream reference you can either take the difference between the two sensors as you go and then some of them up at the end or you can do the incremental differences on one sensor and the metal differences on the other sensor and relate them at the end that are exactly the same the critical the critical point here your honour's is the board's decision just does not account for the one sided nature of testimony in this case dr welch your for your problem and i think the ju actually reached and what you're pointing to is absolutely the evidence that could have supported an alternative fact finding but that's not the one the board made and so what you have to contest you can't show us where he said something that would have helped you if they found for you you have to show us why they were wrong for example when he admitted the new way eliminates drift ever that that isn't somehow manifesting a difference between the two calculations such that their fact finding is wrong or so basically what you have to do is prove that they got it wrong all of the things they rejected that cause them to reject the great while testimony you can't just randomly point to something he said that helped a little and he was your expert of course he said something that helps you  your honor we did not make that as a legal argument that we did argue that the one piece of evidence that they hang dr great well on was unsupported because what he testified was what he had shown in the context of navigation equations and the claims are not limited to those navigation equations i minimum we would we would propose a one one alternative here if the if the chords is concerned about the state of the record because there's no mention of the testimony from dr welch on the the benefits of this other way is  behind their board's fact findings right that's correct that's correct but we do think that one of the underlying ground factors here is incorrect and that's that's all the board relied on here was a supposed concession by doctor