morning you may be good in the morning your honor may please the court the district court committed reversible error by relying on its own unsupported notions of common sense to finally claim one of the zero five for past was invalid for obvious have to be clear convincing evidence that at the time of the invention the skilled arson would have won had a reasonable expectation that the prior elements could be physically combined with the defendants that they could be  that the combination would be successful no evidence of that is the case ron or no one houses of the district court on any of these issues and what i find striking the district court says well i'm lying on my own the artist and using common sense just an ordinary creativity would not have combined the references in the way that all parents reported and even if you did combine those references it would still be several pla things we wrestle with we're talking about eyeglasses and and just a magnetic applied sunglass shade that that would fit over the front of the eyeglasses and then looking through these various configuration that is at the center of this dispute being why isn't that a proper basis to conclude that instead of having two of these assemblies at the temples of the glasses you could put one in the middle because they're very different now mr chalo in the two or seven path and his vision was to have stable support of the until around the primary i need to have several reference there was a different kind of a frame sort of understand it was very in frame you could understand why you wouldn't want to be embedding things in the frame that caused some weakness but the structure of the projection cylinder and they and what chad did was he well those to the temporal regions he didn't want them invested in the frame itself because that would compromise the structural integrity of the  primary brains and it's got a bridge in the extended bridge that goes over and catches the the bridge and the primary lands i mean it just doesn't seem that anything more than just a matter of design choice given given the crowded nature of the art and the multiplicity of teachings because you shouldn't do when you look at a path you look at the solution is the problem you see the solution the same path the nataline solution is to say self but that's not the test limitation at the end for allowing and i'm paraphrasing one handed attack and that not let let's look at it well i think you have to read the plain language and then look at what invention attorney said prosecution is distinguishing the process very or if we look at the plain language the left almost as a second magnetic member secure you know if you if you take all these references you could take this in pieces here there and everywhere and come up with sort of a mobile device but it's not the right way to do it in th he refused to acknowledge that a person of ordinary skill in the art can combine different teachings from different priorities is to achieve particular purpose but that's exactly what k s r says the analysis should be that a skilled artis didn't discuss the experts testimony you didn't explain why the experts coached him only really shouldn't you just seem to ignore it he did he did your honor he didn't ignore it he said that he considered the  say about mr soros well but to the court credit he doesn't he says this in his opinion he takes his role as gatekeeper very seriously he assumes in this case we believe the necessarily that he needed to consider expert testimony and i think ago that another case involving simple technology a method of frothing using a plunger and because the technology was so simple all the experts really did there with comparative claims to be accused divide and get a little bit of example that  patent and so under case like enright schreiber it should have been incumbent on aspects to prove that the prior art is not suitable for doing any case holds some statement in the body of a claim that it was an intended use often but this is a direct quote often but not necessarily appear in the preamble it depends on fact the case you have to look at what the actual language in question is doing and in that case the court was considering a particular limitation on is intended to do actually was that sort of functional language there are some additional problems that go along with that the court has recognized that packages are a are certainly free to claim claim knowledge and functional language but there are risks that are associated with that one of them being already decided functionality in a way that sufficiently objective and definite that a person of ordinary skill in the article the limitations of the claim and here we point out that certainly they delivery frame also teaching a projection over the bridge and done in specific we talked about the i where being usable for things like walking down stairs or leaving your house so he doesn't use the words one handed but i'm not sure how you can relate construe that if you're walking out your front door and putting your glasses on at least strongly suggest to the point of making obvious the point that you the invention was made it's grounded in what the person of ordinary skill the army as demonstrated by a car i mentioned to mr nichols the image that in view of the fact that there were so many teachings of so many references wouldn't wouldn't the placement of this magnet in the middle ridge portion be simply a matter of ordinary design choice of no real consequence and he brought up the fact  that the problem with that is that it runs right into it and that it would be to get an analysis in every obviousness case with hindsight because you have the laundry list of references and then you just knowing the solution you just sort of pick and choose and say well that was just a choice but the question i have is really whether whether k s r in all of our cases that talk about they are different variations in that but they are designed and they are they show people of ordinary skill in the art passing the effects of where the magnets are versus the functionality of ease of removal and this pack does play again anything other than one basic structural design element nothing unexpected about the results nothing new in the combination or in the specific elements that were out there again at the time at the time of this invention there already was a bridge mounted  unmet simply because the technology can be easily understood does not mean that it will satisfy the legal standard of obviousness in fact objective consideration of simple technology is often the most the host of problems on the other things and divergent teachings and come up with a solution of the zero five four the answer is no and the answer is no no evidence of that and even if you disregard the experts you can't disregard