they please the court your honors to appreciate the invention disclosed in the five three six that cation the ultrasound system into the invention must be considered as a whole but this court's precedent requires when this is still don't get to the claim to mention more modifications more redesigns are required in order to get to the claims and those modifications redesigns and changes just aren't obvious what what are the i'm missing elements  obvious in the u of the verse and wilkins references ok so let's take a step back and start from the right frame of reference when you combine wilkins and birds you don't get every plane feature what's missing is an articulating arm assembly that supports a flat panel display so after you combine the references you still have to take that flat panel display issues of the articulating our assembly with the piston glance your honor it might seem like a simple modification but when you look at the purposes of the invention of the invention when you look at what the priorities closes it's not a simple change there are some problems associated with that type of modification it helps to some jazz such as it helps to understand a combined burris wilkens device what this will look like is a flat field display screen supported by a four part of the kit with a piston inside but that requires the release button to be pushed when moved so in order to move the display screen the release button is pushed the piston is essentially deactivated sonography or have to support the entire weight of the display screen arm assembly to which the flat panel display is connected for adjusting the elevation and lateral position of the flat panel display and that's the important language your honor because the piston has to be active while mechanism to sew the two arms of the articulating arm assembly together during transportation so we have the changes that need to be made with the four bar linkage and the piston we have the changes that need to be made with the interim locking mechanism and we're not talking about a minor common sense set of changes here this isn't the case our situation where we have an adjustable foot pedal assembly and according to the supreme court the only thing that obvious change made we're not talking about those types of changes here we're talking about a redesign it has to happen to the pistons which is can i ask you we're in your brief intro to killer and i guess a question for where before the board did you make the argument that you're making about the piston in what is  this all traces back to the release mechanism as i mentioned earlier and that release mechanism and wilkins was discussed in prosecution and it was discussed in the opening brief was discussed in the a part of the reply brief so for example in the prosecution the paragraph discusses the problems with wilkins that arise from using a release mechanism can i ask if you use i think you should suggest something about the absence of a motivation to combine i guess i was thinking along these lines putting aside whether you properly presented an argument to the board about long felt need when you do insist now that there was a need there was this problem the proof that people recognized and taking that as an acknowledgement then the need is you want to be able with this lighter screen than the old cathode ray tube to be able to position it so that the patient can see it more easily once you have things wobbling around so in some way or other to make it so that it doesn't wobble what's what more is there to this once you start with the knowledge we need more interest anyway in having a screen that can be positioned more comfortabl more easily manipulable meant manipulable display screens and nothing happens for seven years and if it was that simple to make these changes to combine the prior art to produce the type of ultrasound machine that's in the claim someone would should have done it the claim these these references at first glance appear to solve part of the problem and do solve part of the problem but it's when you get down to the nitty gritty details of these references this is where you see the value of the invention sure you'll be great to have a display screen that moves usually one touch of a finger when someone uses the touch of a finger to move it will be great to have something that's those usually but someone thought to figure that out and invent that and the prior art reference was even when combined don't aren't there they're not there's more there's less to be done you quarrel with york would never look to the microwave dish field when trying to design something in the ultrasound field similarly we wouldn't argue that someone in the ultrasound field would never look to an x ray cart see what we are arguing is that this is a matter of degree and we're trying to figure out what a person skilled in the art of a look at we're already one step removed all multiples that's removed because we're already dabbling in the microwave on top of that this allen reference doesn't mesh with the claimed virtue doesn't mess with the birth reference i'm still trying to figure out how you would adapt the allen reference and made to fit in the bird's reference i think would be easier for a person start the car reference you learn from the prior reference in mind you i'm just understand no such tricks are but what i'm not sure what you would learn from the al reference when trying to work it into the earth reference the invention requires two arms of an interim assembly to lock together flock to each other it is a different locking mechanism and that's why a person still wouldn't look talent he can learn whatever he wants from alan but that's not going to help him get to the the reason goes back to the claim language this is the case against him and so on the claim language there is nothing in the claim that's required other than an interim blocking mechanism there is no particular structure invention it's all this person of ordinary skill was thinking about was how to walk two arms together the alan reference is precisely on point and it's not it's not hindsight if you have a reference that he chooses how to perform a particular function and in the in the claim invention that component is doing the same thing that it was doing in the pr art i think the icon case which was cited in the red briefs is perfectly analogous to this case and it was the same sort of situation there where the clean invention was a treadmill that could fold ultrasound system but if you look at all the components there that are precisely after that there is really nothing that terrible you need to an ultrasound part of it essentially a card that has computer equipment on it it has a flat panel display screen it has a locking mechanism and it's in its portable and that sort of device could be used in many other sorts of environments other than the hospital or in the medical field and so that's why the beyond reference again is it's not it's not very far away from what we're dealing with here although person of ordinary skilled was confronted with this how do i walk these two arms together and that's exactly what allen teaches how to do he can in the context of hospitals the need for portability of heart here for example to an x ray i've had the misfortune of having had to have a portable x  monitor and power station that makes it different from other kinds of horrible when it's used in the hospital setting or outside of the ho that the piston there is working when the control panel is in motion that's true as opposed to holding it in place once it's put in position what's happening in religion is the there's a piston and it is supporting the keyboard or the control panel when it when it's in place and then when the keyboard is moved up and down issue that this is not i mean it's clearly not the facts or are not that much like the facts of k s or the piston services somewhat different more advantage against the applicant or left line does the office call for itself in reaching a conclusion that anybody could have put this together the way this applicant did what secondary consideration certainly would be relevant if and maybe the devil to sion would have been different if the secondary consideration or secondary consideration arguments had actually been made before the agency but they were never there was no argument presented to the agency there was no evidence that was called of the agency's attention to support any one felony arguments and so the agency was never completely solving the problem but there's nothing frankly but attorney argument that supports that assertion and i do i hear you saying that the the rest of my convoluted question of how  are combined with hindsight would be different if they had provided additional evidence of market success i agree that perhaps if there w additional out if there were actually arguments and evidence that were made and then maybe the case would be different but i don't think we can say that the fully me because there is an argument that there was that that time went by when there was no argument made before the agency and the agency was never asked to even consider that it was enough and pointed out are you saying that the differences from the hours are to not at all i have to it's not the officers position that the differences in the art should be ignored whatsoever and for that there would have been any additional burden on the applicant to prove that but  the position here on this particular application is that we are presented with very broad claims and the examiner he believes references the type precisely to those components  know you wish to change and not necessarily but again if we would it and we would have no way of knowing what the market's would it be usable for other kinds of devices like an actuary portable x ray equipment that sort of thing they're the unique design for the locking mechanism and for the piston articulating arm assembly that is attached to a flat panel display there is some additional detail in the claim that says a flat panel display has to the support has to be provided while the flat support the flat panel display the second point is the locking mechanism also has some more details associated with it this isn't just about walking two arms together this is about locking two arms in an articulating arm assembly together while they support a flat down display such that they are stowed a direction that is in line of the direction of travel so reading these limitations in a vacuum such as the patent offices approach seems to be is not the proper analysis these play limitations have to be considered as a whole invention after the considered as a whole as a whole and women  particular you have not said even if claiming one was properly rejected claims eleven and twelve for yes your honor so the reason for that is claim one claims ten eleven twelve all require that this counterbalancing from the piston was a claim one doesn't specifically mention counterbalancing a person still in the r v know that under this design that's what would that's the purpose of the piston that's why it's there when that and pneumatic piston that provides a balanced economy force while the second arm of the articulating arm assembly is in a horizontal position the patent office is not based on the sort of believe there is any difference between claims one in ten for example and the only difference between claims one intense and deals with the further specificity of the counter balancing provided by the system receiver agree with that decision i agree that claims one and ten through