there are two points i try to like to try this morning the first thing is that the invention of the seven one to patent is a universal tool and the inventors here they recognized the need for a univers describing a universal sensuous and not universal tools to activate the sensors so that mcclellan reference for example which clearly described a continuous wave method of activation there's no recognition anywhere in mcfarland of the need for a tool to activate different kinds of sensors or different methods of activation mcclellan's theory if you follow his probably his business plan was that everyone has the same kind of sensors and then they use his tool to activate them and the same thing with kranz which clearly used a module aided wave method of activation cranston not recognize any need for a universal  show that it's a generic to all it's only generic tool if everyone uses except sensors and that is not really generic to all fix that sensors would have to have a radical memory that have to controller so that they could write to that memory i think is the understanding from because it was just quoted sentences that showed that from fix it there was an appreciation in the r for coming up with a universal tool that could work you know a lot of different contexts which to me sounds a lot like when i'm at home and i have a remote control for the t v and i have a remote control of the d v d never mind control of the x box and i think gosh he's pretty nice to have just one remote control that can talk to all these different from isis and that's kind of with your invention is right does it ready to talk to different that's not the way that the tire sensor business works because it's just like your electronics your d v d player has a different method then the t v or the v c r or your x box or whatever kind of devices you have so by analogy the seven thousand six pattern is you have one tool and it will use one method for your television and it will use a different method to control your d v d player and a different method to control your v c r dikshit would only have one tool we have all of those use the same method of control or method of activation and that's why this i agreed to use the term universal to all but he's not describing a universal to all he's describing a not for our t m s systems and didn't teach anything about activation and sensors and types so the combination does not teach the claims which were for the universal tool of at least two methods of activation i was criticised for arguing the references individual e and i've done it this morning i recognize but it's because when you have a series of references or a number of references that are relied upon to create a combination that supposedly makes the claims obvious if one of those does not do what it's relied upon for reference is not a universal tool despite using that term it does not describe a universal tool and so the combination that was relied upon by the board does not teach the claims or suggested claims do we talk about how how it seems to the the the bridge or you know if dixon doesn't provide the bridge and least how appears to provide ridge at least under a substantial evidence standard an appreciation that when there's a lot of different communication systems with different and products then the house tells us well let's create a universal tool a handheld unit that is able to remotely talk with each of those and products you know in accordance with the particular system each product contains and so therefore that known insight for remotely communicating between a whole host of different devices was applied for be obvious the flyaway to this other situation which is what you have claimed here with talking to different it's obvious to apply that if there is some reason to do that such as market pressure which was recognized in the cancer case which was not present in this case looking back now ha ha most every car now has these kind of pressure systems at the time of the invention all they were required by law to require now to said it was a market pressure for these kind of tools so yes i gree under the substantial evidence  standard that how does show a universal tool for our if i teach others if i do catch but not for tiger pressure monitoring systems and so it's our contention that by using the road map of the seven one six happened you can you can look back and say well yeah that was that was obvious to combine all these prior art references but that's only if you know today what what we know now and at the time  and a little bit more detail because mcclellan is relied upon both for anticipation and for obviousness and mcclellan only describes a tool with one means for activation and he did say well other frequencies or ranges of frequencies may be used but it's significant that he didn't say additional frequencies maybe he said other rangers he said different frequencies and maybe substituted and substituted to me means that you use it in place of something else so mcclellan doesn't suggest using one range of one frequency and then use another frequency he says he only describes one frequency and you can't use his disclosure or his description of his tool as a road map to find of a device that activates at two different frequencies now he d ranges of frequencies which my expert says is a vague term and it is because we don't know what it means because this is a range just the the the costs incurred around one hundred twenty five megahertz or is it everything from one hundred twenty five up to something else and then he distance is still a different range of frequencies and it doesn't lead anyone to think well hey i could use this tool to activate at two different frequencies he only describes one frequency and therefore he doesn't anticipate and he doesn't render obvious either because the board noted that a person of skill in the art understanding the problems presented by incompatible sensors but there was not a recognition of a problem of incompatible sensors for our g m s systems and told the inventors of the seven one six pattern recognizers problem until the board correctly found that based on this known in compatibility a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make a tool that used more than one path and in order to decrease the number of tools that they had to