preparing for the day i went back to the briefs and apologize again a lack of pure theory pure clarity but i will say that miller alone is asserted with respect to all claims but claims three those and if when this is remanded the board needs to consider we believe miller alone plus the combination of miller gang and patrick and just for contacts the seventy two pounder to treat portion of one other question if the tree portion you may recall willis predicated some tire argument on the fact that miller doesn't teach a tree portion as they construe that the court rejected that construction but the order the dots are below and so that is why the court is remanding so that the board will consider miller alone because miller alone is a treat in fact live it into the claim destruction issue before tree portion was construed previously to mean non detachable branches miller doesn't teach that the board adopted that construction the court this court reversed that construction so that had been remanded for in the other case consider a similar alone based on the change in the script tree portion to make that clearer so i'm sorry for that particular if you waste of time but the issues with that just turn it i'm just trying to understand where we are in here if i understand correctly this current connector argument collector element that is the tree connector connector element is part of each of the independent claims are really and are facts all of the claims and for context what's really in dispute here is the seven to patents claim of a  tapered or multi valued amator connector between connect electric connectors within trunk sections that's all this issue here and the let me ask you one more process issue if i understand so we come on yes you are challenging that conclusion no motivation complying let me ask you if we were to hypothetically read with you with regard to boards with respect to no motivation just that and the case are improper but it could be remanded as well if this were so if we said the word wrong there was a motivation to combine these three references isn't there more to be done or don't believe there are any let me on to just move on to just quickly on that question you know we've got a substantial evidence that friends and the board twenty two and twenty three claims and rd they basically relied on their own expertise in making factual conclusions that were not supported by anything on the record so with respect to the chaos our analysis as you know cats are says we should give an expansive and flexible approach to considering f this instance would be somebody with electrical engineering degree or equivalent expects perience and lighted artificial tree manufacturing design so very skilled and the problem here being addressed is relatively simple how to stick to killer ship components places where they cite to any evidence from willis with respect to two minor points they just consider the evidence and reject it over and over and here they apply a distinction between tapered electrical connector prosecution to eliminate security and then independent claim eleven it only says it needs be housed within so there's no requirement of a press fit or a push to requirement when the board applies that require as i mentioned before right i hope i can prevail upon you to argue against at least one of those concepts your honor and that is that the primary arguments that are made in a position a very petition by petition and so i think that because this i portion and this just sort of refers to that miller had conventional plug socket connectors and they include st and nd and portions without claiming that they meet the diameter limitations and if you look at the incorporate material it also doesn't reflect any argument related to the diameter limitations and my recollection from the prior case is that each of the and independent elements that was argued there was at least an argument or a structure identified in miller that met for allowing me to prevail upon you with my argument i can see how it's going but also with respect to the dependent claims the present parent got to go where they indicate what their so for example at appendix six and what their incorporating by reference they say that they're explaining the yang miller patry is what they're incorporating which i think means that the primary argument and just to add one point leaving that behind suppo number of claims i think also claim five which relates to a modular wiring assembly that's an appendix to twenty and i to thirty five so is that different argument your friend made that the one remaining issues the combination and you saying there's another issue that has to be addressed here well you have to we have to address the argument on motivation to combine i suppose to affirm that i was simply i kind of trying the scope i think of the claims that would not be subject to remained based on miller alone which is what i thought the question was i may have missed something no go ahead so you're going to identify claims but if they wouldn't be subject to miller alone would they be covered articulated in preserving the validity of the claims i believe if those failed we would still be remanded as to them to consider whether or not the asserted elements actually do meet those limitations misunderstanding but i think just the motivation to combine arguments that they've raised motivation comply with respect to the trunk connector on their mobile with respect to the  we did have some we had some other arguments that weren't reached claim construction related i think lighted artificial tree and the meaning of joined so i am not sure that unless compete have the distinction between what the problem that those seventy seeks to solve which is basically hosting electrical connections inside of the tree trunk and enabling them to be securely fastened such that a connection can be made versus whether or not you're sticking to tubes together or something like that i also know that it's you know of course their burden to show that there is a motivation to combine and all the other they submitted was carefully examined i disagree with that your honor they said that it had a divergent path and that and the types of forces and questions that opposes looking at or in examining in those in the course of those references are different than the ones that were being addressed by th seven to they also addressed materially the difference in whether you have the same problems and concerns related to metal versus black plastic components and whether or not the the there would be any manufacturing ease that would be accomplished by changing out you know one connector for another i think that it was a pretty full some analysis of the different parts with respect to whether or not the board actually relied solely upon its own expertise and reading of the the prior art i'd like to draw the court's attention briefly to the case of the apple in sixty five appendix eighty i mean that addressed spirit fairly specifically the boards in title meant to rely upon its own review of the asserted references and also upon  six there is a lot of argument regarding the differing problems that were involved in connecting two poles versus fixing or securing electrical contacts that within the trunk force and i'm so the they pressed it and pushed through issues were not appropriately determined by the board i would submit that those issues were actually raised by polygraph itself and i'm in its petition in articulat what structures it was asserting against the patents they referred to the miller or the patrick and yang combined connector as being one that provides for a compression ship the compression fit within the trunk portion and the board acknowledge that because they're assessing the sort of prior that allows for a compression fit there is no rationale for differentiating between whether it's engaged or house or was an interference fit based connector parties and we as well as electric argued that it related to a secure securely fake connector in a tree trunk portion and that was also part of the word opinion all just make one very quick point i'd disagree that clay five would be miller was a sort of with respect to claim five i'm happy to answer any other questions that you all may have but i feel like i owe you some time back so i'm willing to give it now unless you have