with this kind of reference so we have to watch both of the limitation of the claims we discussed judge laurie in an earlier argument you kidding on the word each limitation record requires that each entry in the table so there's a table and each entry in the table must have two things it must have an issue or identifier code or series of codes identify the series of car which were not disputing for purposes of this appeal that it would then correspond to a particular currency that's right but you can look at those that did it all day and the computer can look at them all day and it will not know the associated currency to know the associated currency it has dispute that the bin number will be ultimately associated with a particular currency how do you know which apparently that is is a very important question you can call the bank and that's obviously not covered by the claim the claim circulation the bin does have going to go to both it with it but is it in is it known and is it present in the table as required by the plan so with respect to the new bank a reference iranians of course we don't know how it works and the vampire hypothesized various ways in which it could have worked and so based on the examiner hypothesis it's undisputed that one possible way that it could have or is without currency codes in the table in fact we also know from testimony and brother that in fact correct but for purposes of the analysis here what matters is what you can learn from the reference ok and from the reference we don't know for sure but the examiner hypothesize that it may have been nothing more than a list of bank identification numbers that still exist the currency code and the inquiry would have been the examiners hypothesis are you on that list or not if you're on that less jamaican dollars if you're not on that left u s dollars there would have been no way for that system to have determined the operating currency for a particular card it would simply make a  there's a lot of data that you would have to gather to build a system that is able to determine when you swipe your car immediately the banks with what currency to pin them to represent i'm sorry i'm asking the banks what currency they're the particular been the member represents yes you can ask the bank that's right and you can ask the bank and then what you have to do if you want system that can perform the method as claimed if you then have to have that information available because of course the claims of not  represent and then the list of the invention i can quibble with your wording on it but in essence it is taking that information and putting it in the same place so that it can be used for the purpose of  what currency is actually associated with a card you have to provide it in one place in the table as claims in a bank or reference and this is this is the key point the bank a reference they get and we don't know how it works but in the exam  a proposal for what that product reasonable construction would be so we don't know what the target is but the point is whatever it is given the exam it's hypothetical how the examiner understood that made it work whatever that construction would be it would only the issue of obviousness and the issue of obviousness this is the unusual situation in which the patent office is asserting single reference obvious once we get the obviousness now because there is no reference that discloses the missing limitations and the argument is that a person must be on the ark would have bridge that gap with out the limitation being disclosed anywhere in the prior  avoid hindsight it's particularly important in the context of single reference obviousness for there to be as events to the patent office to point to evidence in the record that there would have been a reason to modify  marketing blurb to provide the plain table there is no evidence in the record of any such reason in fact the only  well the reason it wouldn't be obvious that it is exactly what i said that there is has been no reason identified in the fire telling someone to do that and the only reference that that issue on the side in this appeal tells you to do the opposite so the sentence on which the director with the last of the six sentences in the blurb that to have been fatally easily smiles for individual countries individual countries the director understands that to mean multiple countries to add multiple countries cards and multiple currencies in that list it doesn't say multiple it says individual and it's very clear in the context of this blurb if we can learn anything from this blurb at all which is a marketing piece and i second that these it's that the notion was you could take the system terminal it describes local versus nominal and then in the penultimate sentence it says that the bin table is easily customized for individual countries so if we were looking for substantial evidence in the record to support the proposition that there is a reason to do what the director is suggesting the only reference in the record actually suggests the opposite and what is really count so so what it does is it tells weeks to identify the currency of one country and it's not  d to use the bin numbers to identify kinds and more than them that's correct because the objective of this if we can glean anything from from this reference the objective is simply to distinguish between talent that and i think this is critical for the court to know on page eighty seven of the record which is the page on which the board issued its factual findings about this reference even the board did not decline did not make a factual finding that this reference teaches multiple countries and multiple currencies in in that the suggestion to use those in that table even the board not so there is no factual findings there's no finding of fact from the board on which this court could uphold the judgment of the board be anticipated by the bunco or whether it would have an obvious over the bucko but the bongos states that it's been tabled is used to determine which transactions should be invoked or us dollars and that's a seven fifty problem too for it's been able to do that it has to have with good corresponding currency information now mainline argues that the table have to have a certain format and for each individual been and it has to be laid out here and  at the table with the so we customize for individual countries and if you assume that to be two countries you know a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized it to make a table for two countries and then he says furthermore it is one of ordinary skill in the art would know that a country would get visitors from more than one country so it would be obvious to and more than one country to the table and so there would be a market force or design do that and that would just be common sense i'd want to pick up on the comment that your i made this is the this is the reference that we have from about and this is the only reference that that on appeal it is in fact telling and this is a response i think that to some adjudged i question that this is the best reference the patent office defines it just so happens as noted in our briefings that numerous courts around the world have upheld corresponding claims over this right because i'm not saying those courts obviously are binding on this one but in terms