two separate categories you've got hospital beds on the one hand and controller area networks are cans on the other hand so also notice viewed that the prior art never puts those two things together the first first company ever to do so was my medical devices and can have been put together yes but if you just get hospital bed tonight and then i guess correct or not and then that will be part of what i'll get into is whether or not how we define as broad categories because in some instances you could devices a whole have a lot of different parts of them and can be very different from a catheter to a pacemaker to a hospital that's why that's why the medical device category doesn't seem as an devices not lounge chairs or beds or anything like that but other medical devices which the next three machines are as i said you know maybe a pacemaker a catheter you there's such a broad range of things you can call medical devices i mean the other and how does your controller functionally differ from the controller that operates the lounge chair functionally different i don't i guess i don't want to get into factual issues i'm not that aware of how it uses how it works on or there or even can that works on lounge chairs but there are certainly different aspects to a hospital bed such as a scale such as the the different ways the bladders raise and lower the patient that i think would be very distinct in a lounge chair the hospital bed my clients are here to tell you this are very complex devices that require a lot of different functionality for the safety of the patients and they have to unlike other medical devices dialogue short of those is i am called a controller area network that's a fancy description for the way you operate through that that doesn't go down to the doctor's office or it so the controller or the network is it does have functionality that goes back and sends messages and that's part of the unique aspect of putting into a hospital bed that had never been done before is before you had a situation where you could implement and do things one one of the time but you could have one button that did the the feet went up and down another but in no way the patient this allows there to be interaction between the various modules on the bed and be able to replace models without having to rebuild before that so it really was a revolutionary change in hospital beds which some of the revolutionary but to the people that still hospitals it was it was and fo yes that is one aspect of times and certainly if that's all that a hospital bed was it was just moving things up and down then there i think there be a little bit more merit to that argument now the fact the matter is that we still put those two to do so correct correct and there are as i said in a hospital bed you've got many other models other than just raising and lowering i mean you do have the articulation which is going to be very different from the x ray device and really if you look at heinz what it was focused on this was wireless transmission so someone looking at bed but that doesn't necessarily mean that there would be a motivation to to look to the prior art to see what systems were you have implemented these new kinds of things that you want to implement in the bat will be just be clear the functionality was aren't there they were using old network systems to use the functionality that was less useful and it was the invention of putting the can into the vet so it wasn't functionality didn't come along and said how we with it was the combination is this court has found almost every invention is a combination of all things i mean we're not yes my saying that we came up with some brand new the lightbulb or something you know it certainly is a combination of two things but it was a combination nobody had ever done and nobody had ever thought to do and in fact part of the piece cap has to do a combination of the bed known functionality with with the new system that with this controller area network but wasn't the functionality of the control area network already known it was for certain devices but not for these types of devices that's correct ok so but but you don't dispute that it and then would be appropriate  to conclude that a pilot might look at the other devices in terms of when when deciding what kind of network teams correct i don't spew the data because look at that and really this isn't as much of a motivation to combine question in my mind as saying it caused a reasonable expectation of success correct yes and whether or not or whether they could have done it it was really the question and this is addressed in the p t s opinion i think this entire appeal on this particular case comes down to these two pages of the  opinion which are eight to twenty one to twenty two where they specifically set out a hypothetical person add knowledge to implement canon a hospital bed and said right over the front of the question in dispute is whether the hypothetical person would have the knowledge to implement can in a hospital that's the question faced with you today when they addressed that they went through the evidence and the only evidence that they cited two was the fact that it had been done on other medical devices like an x ray machine they didn't have any normal level of skill me are in fact and that a particular person may have consulted with an expert that the board's concluded that they did it just to save money and time and that's what the board concluded which i have a dispute with that's really what it says it was more of a marketing piece by the ordinary skill in the art have conceived of this idea this in thing i didn't think it asked the question could that individual have been able to successfully implement the invention or plan your factoring purposes and i correct it in part and i think the real question though in the analysis is whether when you look to see whether they conceived of it or could have conceived of it would they have been able to do it i mean it's it's let's a separate question is what would they have actually known where to put the screwdriver and to need how many fuses it would ruin as a separate file i think that's that's not at the time looking at i'm saying just even in general how to put these two things together if they're only able to do that i think that gives to the question of whether they could have conceived of it because they wouldn't think to do it if they wouldn't be able to implement it and there must be some evidence to show you can just simply find references over here to find references over here and that somebody would have just magically know how to do that now in hindsight great rehab hospital beds we've had it for fifteen years never can on but that's because our client came up with a way to do that and now after spending all the money on prosecution development enforcement we've got the people have without evidence coming in and saying sorry we don't have a patent or what but in terms of what the person is ordinary skill or anyone that's implementing the invention had to know how to do the we look to the clients right in the claims if you look at claim one that says it's complicated is the actual hill from hospital that made the claim one is anything but complicated it point well and i think it's a question of when a woman versus ability to put it together just because the claim is broad doesn't mean that someone is coming out would have known how to implement the two together no but in terms of what the pursuit of skills the i would have had to know how to implement natural they would have had to know how to implement the way they would have to go to the specifications figure out based on the disclosure of the specification how to do that implementation yes they only have to know how to implement those two things as described in the claim that my my point is the specification and teaches you how to do that in a hospital bed so yes it looks like a hospital that can put those together but you still have to be able to do that and even the clean doesn't teach you perceive how to do that it's a broader point the determination is regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art whether one is still there could implement or whether there was a reasonable expectation of success in implementing cannot a hospital bed and substantial evidence supports the factual findings and before i turn to those specific findings i'd like to kind of address some of the issues that came up during the opening argument here hiromi the point of the opening argument that the prior art of that existed at the time was hospital beds and can medical devices were found and that somewhat imprecise in the sense that it was hospital beds with networks existed and cans and all of the functionality that still run described during the opening about the ability to control modules on the bad that was in the prior aren't that came from com or covers a primary reference or were one of the primary references that in the heart already is just another type of network to use on a bed so if you think about judge pricing you raised the issue of the claim the claims are directed towards a hospital bed with can what existed way around and it and i also don't see this as a simple simple substitution case which the board tried to hang this into so the question is despite those errors is there a way to say that the board ultimately did do a proper motivation to combine analysis and because simply saying that because there was a network and because can happens also been a network that was used in other things that that that's enough i don't think that's enough for purposes of those words finding a motivation to combine so why don't you point to me where you think the board actually found the motivation six mon can publications and that's where the motivation from bias as the board found with the motivation doesn't have to come from the references itself will come from the heart and when you looked at what was or was of available to one of the skills of art you had a hospital bed with the networks and you had kids and in trying to address the issues of problems what would exist with that side chance provide solutions to those problems but that years you tried to defend the extent to which the board relied on a simple simple substitution theory and given the complexity of them what's at issue here and i don't think that's enough and so my question is where did the board then say beyond the question of well there's a network here and there's a can here and we'll just put one on top of the other implementing can hospital beds had the same types of routine design choices that one would face in implementing any network so let's forget about partnership so but but the problem is that what you're saying is that the p tab fell off that there was something that would would just sort of inspire someone to make a simple substitution but then that's that even the case pages that you point to are untrue twelve there's a lot of negative language in other words basically saying that hill rom didn't convince them otherwise didn't convince them that it couldn't happen and what i'm trying to recognise the through these applications and other medical devices the advantages of using can in a hospital bed would be appropriate and that's where the motivation comes from so i'd like to talk about this issue of the attribution that somehow the knowledge of one is still in the knowledge of the design for of attributed to what are still in the are now i think it's important to look at the treatment of what happened so when the p tab reached its conclusion about the level of skill in the art p tab in looking at the environmental design factors did not consider the knowledge of the third a result of it and i think that's a reasonable conclusion and i think the fact that the design firms exist at the time shows that how ubiquitous can was at the time and interestingly enough i think what's what's  points out is what specific knowledge was transferred from the third party to mr hayes or then to what was hypothetical person and the art that they would have needed to implementing it i think the record evidence is pretty clear things together is what they are standing on has their invention and it would appear that nobody else had done that are you of the view that somebody because of the use of it's taking the use of chance which was used in a variety of non medical and medical industries for a number of years for precisely the same reasons as being used in a hospital bed and they stuck it out of hospital that was an improvement over what had previously been available on hospital but it's not an invention why not because it hospital that there's nothing in the record that i can see that the board points to richard to show that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success with the use of clean and how much of that well medical devices demonstrates that it really is predictable in terms of the way it works so there is plenty of record evidence i think to establish that there was a reasonable expectation expectation you're ar because there were successful in doing it they must've had a reasonable expectation that no i think it would do you if you look very very specifically of the hispania declaration in the dickson declaration what they were to what they talked about is it was hard to do that it took a lot of work that's not invention that's just routine engineering work that happens every day if you if when you look at the reasonable expectation of success multiple groups had implemented in multiple medical applications of the fact that they independently these were not all of the same groups the fact that independent groups with independent medical devices that implemented can and and that that route most of the medical advice from the mean that's the problem with this argument is that motivational bind here is just create a broad category so somebody didn't elsewhere in that broad category therefore we know how to do it here i think the question was asked where did the board find this motivation combined with the answers was from the he's double ration and then there was question whether or not he was once going the are it's undisputed we raise the issue that he is more that skilled you are that hayes actually is higher level than school what did he do he went out that that talked about how can function and how desires can implement that technology if you look at those articles closely your honor what you'll see is just very personally indications that they were it could be used in the medical field some of them even safe they're still being developed for the medical field not one of those references mentions anything about a hospital bed or anything close to a hospital bed and so it's really the same arguments that they then fall back hundred twenty one to twenty two when they make this conclusion that he could have combined this and again you look at that those two pages the only evidence is there on this broad medical device category and then since we can't find anything else we're going to turn the tables and now have all wrong explain to us why this wouldn't why this beauty different hospital i feel at the board and gone the k s r for guidance that they were quoting from k s r record held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious one of those no more than you know predictable results on to say to make this determination the court explained it will be necessary to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents and the background knowledge possessed by a person having that isn't that what k s r is really asking us kids are that's that is the long kiss are the problem is you actually have to have evidence to show that kids are also goes on to say unless it's actual application is beyond a person skilled in the arts evidence that someone actually could put these two things together so while your honor's recitation of gifts are certainly correct and is the law that we follow you need to do more than just simply cite the case of that you must point to evidence probably review it and my opponent can come in here and make new arguments to try to bolster because we don't have an opportunity to argue that the patent office and if they want to try to make new rejections or come up with a basis for their decision that's for the patent