underlying interpretation of the prior it was wrong that was definitely present and it will bring in the priority here it is clear the only remaining element that's still out there after ocean one is frien there he actually gave specific examples for the data type intended use he talked about how an engineer microsoft would be tailoring the system to microsoft word or seagate engineer be tailored for hard drive information and then he also said for algorithms he and then find a friend a check which says you get better compression which is the st goal that oestrogen says expressly you give better compression by tailoring to the encoder to that of block itself and not surprisingly french x as you're going to use these the intended applications all the goals and all the algorithms there are unlimited ways of doing that that's not the problem with the test itself that's a problem with the patent as you pointed out dr sears said there's a limit for example on the type of that of the patent so of course the hypothetical is going to have to rely on the ordinary skill in the art the background knowledge to fill in those gaps exactly as the panty did depend to express who said you can specifically tailored for any specific application you can address any type of data by using even future see that dr cruz there really addressed that my mistake doesn't share did not address that but what he did say is that sampling itself shows that friend check was concerned about time because sampling actually increases or sorry actually decreases the time it takes because you're not going to waste time doing an entire block as a pattern says you do entire block another one and then you're going to use a timer to determine which of those blocks was fully done it's going to sample it so that actually shows it faster the know that you can compress it better with france x method which fills in the only gap that's missing the only idea that's missing and they would know that is very fast the same algorithms that the panty disclosed and that way there's almost no daylight between this case and recoup point correct and what the reason why it's not complete overlap is because what's missing from mosul and offensively is friend of text teaching that used multiple encoders which was a basic idea well known they are and that's the reason why they said you can use levels compressor and you and that was also known to be very fast the same time but friendship filled in that gap for the check said look at these individual algorithms that you can use the same algorithms with the patents he did and in that way it's the same way in  so that's what's the combination of either one is obvious your honor and indeed even if you're going with what just specifically said placing friend check in the data stream is much simpler combination because then you have all the components in front of check that you know or are know if you practice these claims is if you actually built the system and you tested it so the only way post hoc that you would know that is you have to test it so going into it to test for obviousness is not whether the outcome to be exactly the same thing is the teachings would produce expressed with disclosing the pat so what you have here is a system that says osu and says and teaches compress it compress it faster and you have friend a check that says here's a way to compress it faster and by the way everyone knows that those that are being used are the fast ones the same ones the patentee used what forensic teaches i understand is to seek maximum compression right yes but and that doesn't necessarily mean that it's faster it doesn't does challenge in the blue brief becomes immaterial because there is an independent basis that supports the board's decision under substantial evidence that was not challenge spend waste they tried to argue those issues for the st time in the and that's simply not proper grammars however let's go into the substance of the issues that were discussed and i think what we heard just now is precisely the type of argument that we should not be having a federal circuit which is a really weighing of the factual evidence and delving into the particulars of what each reference teaches and did the board weigh the evidence correctly or not this is a substantial evidence review standard the board's decision is extremely detailed it's extremely point that i did not hear come out and there was maybe some complete fusion on this on this factual point that a significant australian house one and only one data compression algorithm it's not the common run of the mill data compression algorithms there is a very broad category of compression families that fall under the heading of lentils it within that category there are a lot of permutations and variations of modifications and innovations there's levels of seeking faster data transfer doesn't meet the limitation of the claim anyone might want faster data transfer any time that's that's no one's going to argue with a general desire to do things faster the question is can you do it how can you do it with specificity and if you do it that way doesn't meet the claim limitation the claim limitation is not simply about faster data transfer as a starting and from this point forward doctors krieger explains the process a friend of checks compression method and the inherent delays in that compression method and he explains right there the proposed modifications would defeat the purpose of franchise and what does he mean by that that if he included the faster limitation that would sometimes mean that you wouldn't get maximum question what he means by that is that austria one has just one compressor and so are we are now and let me let me put it this way are we combining abstract ideas or and it has a very simple process for achieving its compression fran a check says i want maximum data storage therefore i have a complex problem of the theory is that if you use the specific data compression methodology disclosed  are simply not interested in speed that's also true your honor in the sense that fran attracts says nothing whatsoever about a goal of achieving sas compression or faster compression now of course everyone would like to make something as fast as it could possibly be able to live with the motivation there to combine austral and with friends but it's not your honor because there after you compress the data that's what it teaches and everybody knows that if i take something that's that's one size and i squeeze it down it's going to take up less space afterwards but that doesn't account for the time that it takes to c teach a data accelerator configured to achieve the claim faster than limitation with two different techniques and it's undisputed that oscar one does not teach the limitation austral and does not teach it fran a type does not teach it and this is limitation of these claims they have not found out what they have is one system franchise that uses multiple data compression and coders and has to select between them through a cumbersome process that's appropriate for fan and then they have a different system that's only that's also true and that has just one in coder and teaches the fact that once you compress something you can store it in less time than if you haven't compressed it not that you can take two different pieces of data used to different compression algorithms on them and store that data in less time than if you had never done any of those things at all ok ok supposedly inventive aspect that has to compression encoders based on the type of data block and then oh so one teaches you to do it to pick the ones that are going faster and that's all the claims do there's no requirement in the claims that problems with them we are one is that requires the part of the corporation that doesn't look at just the teachings themselves the teachings themselves most on are clear you choose faster and that's what the patentee says the same thing you design a systems black box data accelerator and you choose the one to address these hypothetical possibilities even the panties recognize that once you do it you're going to tailor the system that one of ordinary skill in the art knows how to tailor the system and so if you step back the only question remaining is whether or not it's within the can or within the grasp is the supreme court put it of an ordinary skilled artisan using creativity and common sense to look at us too and that says do compression faster and you're going to get stores that's faster and friend check that teaches you to have two if along with those other known fast algorithms so of course one would expect success and that's exactly what they would get run for an effect as it is as dr sears said you would do if you did not have any restrictions run it as it is and just use the faster algorithms as osha will teaches you this is very basic very simple very straightforward as a percent repeatedly said ok