does that is the result of struggle and i know figure why that's what shown there and that is what in fact sinclair has admitted on page twenty nine of their briefing where they say in stargate although i know as you can see from the figure the regulators are confront are multiple regulators down the street and now the lynchpin of this swapping around the thing around which the swapping around is i'm sorry if but your point is that the own i know already shows the order that is claimed in the patent that's at issue here so you don't they didn't need anything else to show that order the only thing that that they needed to add to the own i know was the replacement of one kind of rectifier with another of the figures rectifiers that's exactly  right and that was the rejection that the examiner adopted and it's probably good just to reiterate because i think it simplifies a lot of the arguments in the briefing if we focus on the rejection of the examiner back to the examiner rejected the anticipated claims in the oh no i know in column two there's a reference to capacity around twenty three passing in front to find converter twenty i didn't see the number twenty in either but two figures on the own i know which suggests to me that it back to those figures when using the reference numeral twenty but you're right it doesn't appear in figure i want to start a row on an l and we also know that the policy of the circuit is the same the description of it that you find in the column to line fifteen to thirty three of what the joint documents with teach does that require a reconsideration of the obviousness ruling this is either all of them or at least coco's pressman on yes i think it does your honor for a couple of reasons the first is that the board tonight has some of the obviousness rejections based on the deficiencies they found in the underlying all documents that for example claims twenty four to twenty six the board found that there was no motivation to put the figures rectifiers from start all five thirty nine in stark of all don't i know obviously could start a lot and i know as an integrated document factual inquiry involved because to be fair there are secondary consideration he's involved in the obviousness case too and that is highly factual and our complaint about the secondary consideration is the board just didn't consider all of the relevant facts that would have undermined the second or exoneration least the following the fact there would be a question whether a commercial success was attributable to what found in the anticipated claims rather and therefore perhaps not much attributable to the other and for the secondary considerations would need to turn on the difference between the closest prior art and the clinton voting and in which case for example for claims twenty four twenty six that would be the voltage levels that were described there it would no longer be what's in co claims to be the genesis of surprising results for example separating isolation and regulation which i think you've already seen stargirl all the present but that's what's in core claims so you would have a closer piece of closest prior art and the difference between the two would also become a venture mark with which he addressed the secondary consideration what if any effect of again by assumption for purposes of agreeing with you about anticipation would there be on  pressman combination so i think for reviewing secondary considerations you would still need to take the closest prior art into account started all oh no no income nation is firewalled five hundred four is an integrated document so would have some effect on it all the underlying claim elements would still be taught by pressman and by cops part of the board's reasoning if i'm remembering correctly and correct me if i'm wrong about the bus pressman was that there was no reason for somebody reading kobus to look at pressman because coco's dab would be shifting to something less efficient did you make an argument that a reason would be found in for example space saving at some cost minor cost and efficiency no we did not make an argument about the tradeoff between space saving and efficiency argument was th actually found that pressman teaches providing a multiplicity outputs of high efficiency and so that's a fact finding by the board which is subject to different like every other fact finding by the board and when the board actually finds that it been a motivation to sack to to sacrifice a little bit of efficiency i get something i'm asking that's because i thought maybe both of them the briefs maybe it's just yours i'm not sure there was a back story of wanting to save space by not having what i guess you called bricks many many bricks but having smaller components with consolidating like the isolation piece of it in one one box that i guess raised the question in my mind whether there was a space saving motivation or would have been to go after guess i'm trying to understand if there's a factual problem or just that you didn't argue that i don't think there's a factual problem about necessarily the food you have the pressman post switching regulators that are not isolated you see the the assertion that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine various references in a way contrary to their teachings to produce a device that was inferior to the devices that they actually taught i mean i think is the earlier discussion indicated at least in my mind that the central issue here is what the board did and could fairly do on the evidence with the two steigerwald patents can you focus conclusion is lacking in substantial evidence for here's why your honor first of all the there there was an incorporation by reference but as the board found and invite her doesn't really challenge it was the board said that for purposes of discussion it was assuming that the incorporation was sufficient to incorporate the text of steigerwald five three nine in the zero nine all but it went onto to hold and by court doesn't dispute that there was no specific direction to incorporate any particular in the five three nine it's simple i think it's important to look at exactly what this alternative embodiments statement which is really the focus of by course case actually says says another alternative embodiments and this is a sixty one c and those figures show only the isolating stage they don't repeat the simply the regulating stage on the left side of figure four that's correct suggesting that that's really pretty irrelevant to the substitution that's  of all five three nine so beats the circuits whether the numeral applies to them or not they are not identical the other thing your honor is you can't ignore and there is there any chance of your explaining in a way i would understand why what you just said about the plus and minus matters i don't think i know that depends on your i would understand but can you take a crack at it i all i can say your honor is just looking at the are different so i don't think you can just end up not my point it's just that i don't i think that just underscores that the reference in the five three nine is dealing with a specific embodiment namely the invite the figures four and six and you can't just automatically translate that to the all and i know because they're not identical and and i think it's important while there is this focus on this capacitance multiplying circuit but that the board didn't provide any kind of explanation why it would somehow affect the zero nine zero to drop in synchronous oh i think it i think it did your honor you know in a way that it wouldn't affect the five three nine figure for swap out well what what the board explained your honor was that in the that there would be an efficiency hit if you dropped those synchronous rectifiers into the all night if you tried to translate the five three nine so and this was explained in detail in dr selects a declaration before the board if you made that substitution there's no point to it because you actually end up losing efficiency because whatever efficiency you gain by putting in dropping t very different the five three nine because it uses the pre regulator it doesn't have that same issue because the having a switch or right switching regulator out there doesn't induce inductance in the current path because the capacit storing the energy storing capacitor is at a different location in the five three nine and bottom and unlike the the all i know works right at the end for pins which means that any inductance is going to be right in the current path so that's why frankly your honor i think if you look at the express incorporation it's in the related it's in the very first section of that that it's related applications and it is i think it's pro forma i think it's absolutely pro forma your honor i don't think there's any indication anywhere in the zero nine zero patent that that was any corporation that was done for any specific purpose or to teach anything about the own i know invention or to suggest any modifications to the on i know invention was absolutely pro forma it was basically i've got these other applications they deal with the same kind of stuff i'm incorporating them by reference here and that really ties into and we're not disputing that there was incorporation here but again as the board on there no specific incorporation it doesn't say you know you can even look at the synchronous diode teaching in the five three nine and that has relevance to the zero nine or anything like that which is usually the case in a corporation by reference cases there's usually some specific obviousness finding based on those references but even then even with that the board did find and this is at appendix eighteen and also appendix twenty two dealing with the three different obvious innocent alice is on the assumption that they were right about their anticipation because then you would have a certain kind of arrangement with the synchronous rectifiers in the prior art  i understand that point i would know though that the planes that were found to be have been infringed in the litigation and you know all of the commercial success and secondary considerations evidence pertinent there to work work claims that are narrower than the claims that would be hypothetically found anticipated so i think there still would be the nexus know that but it may well be true out of that you would still want to do the turn briefly to the coast and pressman issue that mr smith talked about the be the primary basis for the board's ruling there was that there would be absolutely no motivation for one of ordinary skill to modify kobo by adding the you know the pressmen not isolated switching regulators on to it the supposed motivation that bike or had offered was somebody who's confronting cobalts would want to consider a way of providing multiple up with voltage is part of the euro but cobo says the board explained already disclosed how to do that in its own figure fourteen and was in a way much more efficient  ninety two percent efficiency compared to doing it the press in a way which isn't just slightly less efficient but it's it's only got efficiency of fifty nine percent so there'd be absolutely no going of a ship for one of ordinary skill looking at start connect can i ask you the same question i asked your opposite number this this idea of motivation from space saving which which i do not recall having seen but why would it be wrong well it would be i'm not i'm not sure whether it would be wrong i do know it wasn't argued so it's not it's not in the record also there's no indication in either as you'd be looking at present and there's no indication in pressman that space saving would have been a motivation to to take the huge efficiency hit that a two stage process of that press been taught a two  stage process would have entailed pressman at several places says that single stage solutions that is the combined isolation and regulation are much more efficient than double the two stage process because you have to handle the vol inventors are doing what they're doing the demand for us for saving space is now much greater right and at that point somebody thinking about cocos would say that's actually worth buying buying some space and some cost of the station you know that that's possible i think on this record speculative and certainly there is no teaching for the reasons i was explaining there's no teaching anywhere like that in either called ghosts or prospect and so you know basically you'd be have to say on the basis of nothing in the record that somebody a person of ordinary skill would have been willing to take what public impressment teaches a pretty substantially fish and see hat for the possibility of picking up some space saving i see that i am out of time with the corps has any further questions thank you mr trailers explanation that the five three nine suggestion to replace the diodes with the synchronous rectifiers made sense when the regulation was done before getting to that stage not necessarily when the regulation is done afterwards yes i think that explanation is completely wrong and it's wrong because it on i know what it's based on that argument is based on the linear direct the real linear regulators at the end and what they're basically saying is there's two down conversions ok one from let's say forty eight volts to twelve goals and then one from twelve to five and that last one from twelve to five because their linear regulators essentially just burn off the extra stuff involves then what they're saying is if you put synchronous rectifiers into the first stage and that increases your efficiency your transformation the first stage will be forty eight down to thirteen but when you regulate it again it goes thirteen down to five and you just burn the that's why they're saying there's no efficiency but that doesn't make any sense because if you could increase the fish the efficiency of the first stage you would still have your intimidate us voltage be the same voltage that would still be forty eight down to twelve but done in a more efficient way the first stage would put out less heat and you can do that very simply the person gordon is going there by just changing the number of turns in the transformer changing the transformer turns ratio which is discussed in i just wanted to point out in the secondary considerations argument i don't think the board found all the secondary consideration arguments that cynical are actually made the only thing the board found was commercial success they left a lot of disputed evidence on the table and the problem with that is among those disputes are an explanation of why the commercial success happens that does not lead to an inference of non obviousness and also a dispute which indicates that in fight for is correct on that evidence the inventions are actually obvious so we have secondary considerations a point obviousness as well thank you thank you very much