from the board's failure to hold mohawk to its burden of proof namely need to prove and i would've ation to combine the prior art references and to prove a reasonable expectation of success in combining those references the crux of the part obviousness determination must be reversed i'd like to start first by talking about the evidence generally and then go into the lack of evidence the technology at issue here concern here they can be broken down into four categories be first the claims requiring a chemical or lease of a he said bonding there's claims rick are requiring a certain also needed to show that there was a reasonable expectation of success but turning to your question your honor we're are saying here is that there wasn't evidence presented that what we have is just simply  you're saying that you believe that's are it's what i thought your argument was that there's no motivation to combine because there's because of unpredictable results that is part of it but what we're focused on in our first section this is the motivation to combine is that they mohawk did not put on testimony showing that there would be a reason to combine the those the textbook teachings with lubricant so it's not just like a plug in play of oh let's go to the textbook here's a listing of lubricants let's just pick one lubricant out that's not what we have going on here it's the application of it and so in some of the applications we're talking about bonding it some of the applications are putting it with a binder and so it's something more than just selecting a lubricant out of a textbook and i think what are our point here on appeal is this idea that look you can't just say hey there's a textbook out here to everything in that textbook there would be a motivation to combine it you need to have something else there needs to be a next step of this thinking about her doesn't teach all of those ways of doing it i mean that doesn't seem to be what you are convinced that the prior art the combination doesn't show how to use this verse specifically in connection with the prior  because that's part of the claim and what's required and the idea being the way these textbooks have been written about and utilized and suggested by the board is that this is just some type of plug in play let's combine these two references it still doesn't show you would titian all steps of how to apply them and so the prior wouldn't even cover everything but i don't i didn't see anything in your briefing about missing steps and without the specific combination now and we're not saying that the prior art doesn't teach how to apply various lubricants and the idea that there's no testimony there's nothing showing as to why somebody somebody to go through there and you know start with the first one work on the way through what would require them to experimentation you to make that argument below your honor i do think below we raise the argument that look we're looking at to the textbooks as a first step and that you can't just say hey look at this that's the motivation to combine you with your first step would be to look to the textbooks i mean that's what a person two independent grounds that the claims were merely combining known technologies with predictable results and that they were selection of known materials based on suitability for intended use and this isn't simply a question of  t as the experts from both sides testified so but they would just look to the textbooks generally because the prior art teaches them for example to bond the lubricant so you go to the section of the textbook that talks about deisel five for graphite the same thing is true of the sections on applying lubricants suspending them in a carrier solvent using binders to attach them to the inside of the tubular and i think it's important to no mention that this invention was about well borders and connection of multiple tiers and different pressures and none of that's in the claims none of that at all they made those arguments to the board the board was not convinced because that language is simply not in the claims and it's an issue that's not on appeal now these claims the vast majority of the claims that issue on appeal simply require a pipe with some lubricant on the inside of it and then some aspect of that lubricant and i think you the zero one two patent it's fairly clear that in fact the patent is simply describing the two and how you might expand it and then a laundry list and as to the question of reasonable expectation of success the question is whether or not one could reasonably assume achieving the claimed invention and in this case the answer is clearly yes because the claimed invention is very broad could you bought a lubricant from the inside of a t and the answer reviewing the prior art and the handbooks of the part patents and the handbooks is very clear that yes you would expect to achieve that result and whether or not there might be minor variations and performance of a lubricant doesn't matter because the desired result is simply reducing friction it's not achieving some optimal level of friction reduction or operating in some specific environment which your honor turning to what he was just talking about this reasonable expectation of success when you look at the board's opinion it's clear that the board is relying upon the expert in this case mr tripp for mohawk but when you look at mr mohawks declaration in this case he is very brief in his discussion about why you would combine these references and also the expectation of success it's just a single one he doesn't provide any type of rationale as to why there would be a motivation to combine and also an expectation of success and so what we've got here  petition or i'm sorry the patent owners initial grief we talked about the fact that there was no evidence we never i don't believe we made a specific objection on the basis of it being conclusory but your honor before what you will be doing here is doing a substantial of an interview and if it's no evidence it's no evidence whether we objected to it or not and so i think i think that is really what the issue comes down to here is that given the fact that the board reliance on mr tripp's testimony and even though the board specifically says a local were just going to accept it for what it is it's clear throughout in their citation of it that they relied heavily on mr tripp's testimony even though mr tripp provided no support for any of the conclusions he reached regarding predictability and also motivation