questions with my time st i'd like to start by explaining how straightforward the combination the modification in question is here and why the board's decision on the motivation to make that modification was  reasonable expectation of success in light of the very simple modification and how the board erred its legal matter in its application of that standard and finally to address how the fry reference anticipates claims one in three and how the board so they're similar in a number of fundamental ways and the st is they're both related to a specific type of error correction code called the turbo like code that type of code has a specific structure that is the same in both fry and it's lar it's a repeater followed by something called an interim lever that changes the order of it's followed by a nd coder which is a constitutional coder in both cases and so i believe the findings are at a nineteen and a twenty three dollars or four right around there with respect to gives a lark with the board found was that it describes these turtle like codes that are have the structure of a repeater followed by an accumulator separated by an intra lever and then what the board found i believe it's either a twenty three or four was that what frying teaches is to modify that lever an accumulator if you make the single modification of fry cages to take the repeater and instead of repeating every bit for example five times i'm going to repeat half the bits three and the other had seven that paragraph or two there where the board provides its reasons for why it would not have been obvious to make that modification why are those reasons supported by substantial evidence and don't need a whole bunch of reasons but if there's at least one reason that is doctors frightened doctors davis in our case that lays out exactly the factors that we say give the motivation one of which for example is this e mail that is quite extraordinary because it is an e mail from the profile for regularity is trivial or not trivial and as i understand it frey has maybe thirty two dollars different combinations no only one of them would work here is that right well that actually was not a finding below so that is not correct there's no finding of fact that that anything in frye wouldn't work what frye actually teaches repeatedly over and over and over again is that this is a small change to use fry's words a trivial change to use fries words that results in improved performance and there's no so are and so so your honor there are there really that i think analytically a couple of different points here the st is that with respect to the requirement to provide a good profile which the board imposed on u there is no such requirement for a motivation to combine and specifically this i think relates to the reasonable expectation of success as well the reasonable expectation of success only requires an expectation of succeeding in proving because if you if if we read this all the board is saying is an owner argues we agree and then it doesn't actually make a finding as to the next two sentences i think i think the last dollars there is an example given there of if you started from represented three which is what gives large one of the examples of slaughter and you modified that in light of fries teaching to have some it's repeated twice and others four and the simulations that he performed where he again this is something that or discounted it did not give it any weight incorrectly reason i would propose dr fry gives the example of starting from including using the simulator exactly what's what gives a large teaches and he confirmed that it was exactly what tubes of teachers by reproducing the exact results of the fry got in one of fries figures so he started where everything's repeated five times and he said ok i'm going to change that based on fries teaching alone and that's all i'm looking at and i'm going to make it some repeated three others repeat itself and that because the board st did not actually address for example the one thousand nine hundred and ninety e mail between the authors of these two references suggesting this combination when it was decided whether or not there's a motivation here it was we would say very clearly in error to say in the footnote where it says and that would be you would argue an abuse of discretion on failure to consider that happens i believe so your honor but it's also just simply wrong because there were multiple for it what it does is it says let's say i like your work maybe we should try to continue it it says have you ready my pretty wide range of work right it says have you read my paper we attended his presentation of that all right paper and so you see that these two things are pointing to each other and that there is a motivation to combine based on that e mail and we would suggest that's pretty extraordinary evidence for the poor to just and what we have here at the end that i'm the motivation is there were multiple reasons why there was a motivation couldn't all three france's or from the same field oath references describe turbo codes all have the same structure fry teachers and figure one specifically making the modification that we propose would be obvious which is to take regular repetition and make it irregular for i teach is that doing so will result in performance is also key performance that is as good as the richards in her bank the nine hundred and ninety nine paper that was the best performing code in the world at that time and what fr implementation of irregularity so we didn't have a specific irregular profile that is similar as we think that's the same in error as requiring a good profile for you to prove performance because it doesn't actually none of the claims require a specific irregular actually the wording is in this is a fifty six a particular regular code it doesn't these claims from require a particular regular code it just require whether the board's path can be discerned here and and acknowledge it clearly can and that's laid out in the board's decisions and it's important to know what was offered as the stated motivation or can i push back on that a little bit what you said i mean what to ten sure i think there are several areas that they do do a lot of that they identify the arguments and see state which ones they find persuasive if there are other areas that it incur or a little bit more clear as findings of fact but what is clear and three percent their argument about it being a trivial modification we point this out in the red brief that the petition materials are littered with with this type of commentary it was improved performance and  modification that's in a rule to their argument so the words identifying what their argument was identifying their response of argument saying they agree with it and going through and highlighting some things and one of the things that they highlight is the fry the key argument there and seeing the agree with it and then going through and highlighting some things one of the things they're i lighting that your honor points to is the statement in the fry reference itself which it which is describing the modifications using the term not information given the argument that was advanced there are other aspects your honor the very next paragraph this is something we put out our briefing the read brief as well one of the key pieces of evidence that apple relied on th their primary it was the trivial modification and the candy car was key to that the board does bill want it would turn to a twenty eight dollars and then and this gets to the notion of the improved modification that was argued there are several instances where the think they're talking about the two things together i think they're talking about motivation with a reasonable expectation or the bifurcated or now see them mentioning motivation here well here the  is the success that must be reasonably expected nd what do you think the war it's under standing is of a success that must be reasonably yeah absolutely take issue with this notion that the argument that advanced that the board was requiring improved performance it absolutely was was not with the i think what the board was doing and i would i would say is a measure of success in a case where you have a moving party with a  heavy burden of proof that there must be there must be some argument about it so those one of the key problems in this case is there really was very little argument about what the reason the expectation was suppose  at least in one possible understanding apple's position is if you could make the code that is success and so the only argument on that that they would need to make is we could make the what what folks in the are viewed as generally acceptable error threshold right if the objective is to decode your signal you can tolerate some errors but there are levels you are intolerable and we get when you get a code that no matter how high ukraine cup that signal to noise is are you saying that on the assumption that some degree some functionality as understood within the coding industry is required which is more than we can just make a code there proof failed because they didn't have any proof above the threshold of we could make the code i think that's true i would stay i would also have it is what i believe the board did was to weigh the evidence about the high degree of complexity and unpredictability in the ark and state that that did that to the state of the are ways intelligent systems for two reasons one of the other notable aspects of that decision is the emphasis on the responsibility of moving party actually state their case and lay it out with some degree particularities are those a very important part of that can of that case absent a reasonable expectation so that's a problem here there was no reasonable expectation argument in the station there was no identification of the state of the art which everyone leader reid was a high a highly complicated highly unpredictable required requirement and then and then tailor the expectation to that requirement that's not embedded in the claim i would say that doesn't present here we're talking error correction codes which you know we ask what does that pushback on that i think with the board did was credit the state of the art at the time and note correctly that it highly unpredictable state of the art that tends to weigh in favor of not obviousness and then they came back  to write the specific reference of a thirty one dollars the board says in the absence of evidence rooted in the petition that substantiates you know why why you would be doing this thing and expecting a positive outcome just reliance on the new need for experimentation isn't sufficient to support an obvious electrical engineering this is generally predictable arts but as you get into talking with the experts including their own expert who testified that it's mathematically impossible to predict these things in advance we have we came to understand in the course of  clear path yet on motivation can you tell me what you think the best evidence is for me to look at yes i would say there are a few there are a few things there that and on top of i think there is the same rationale regarding the the trivial critical part of their argument but then it goes on to talk about fry in more detail and discrediting the argument evidence that despite the representations that fry would motivate a person to include these the stand alone is the motivation come back it's ok it's this is an important part and i appreciate drunk attention to that there are two things about libby one their initial petition they're just flatly misapprehended the reference they pointed to libya's teaching regular repetition of information bits and what was explained help during trial is that reference doesn't it when it talks about irregularity it's talking about a regular by per take graphs which is an entirely different concept it was all over the record to the point where apple really backed away from that and they sort of went to this in really in re leatham tape if it were either initially relying on reference for teaching something and then they sort of retreat from that and say two things one is addressing this argument that apple advanced that no need for experimentation would provide a motivation and expectation that you would conduct such experimentation and arrive on that disputed well i think the argument that was made based on movies specifically in the two hundred and ten was that there was a state distinct trend in this industry which helps supply motivation and i'm looking  appendix seven thousand and fifty seven that the benefits of adding irregularity to regular codes have been demonstrated in a number of different read a number of different researchers in the field but it's not disputed any longer that for this and the point that i'm making is that it's a clear trend in this industry to add a regularity leading up to fry which does it at the specific point that matters for these claims and it's that fried good results that friday reports where he shows a coding game that is close to the best known codes in the world that the reference three to to give some sort of richardson is done based on just a simple tweak or small change and what he then says is we get those results from the simple change the small change we could go on and try to optimize to find a good profile and that the  optimization could get if called could get beyond the trivial but by that point you're beyond the claim because the claim doesn't require me to get all the way to the optimized code the best performing code the best version of an irregular profile the claim