changes ok but that while that isn't important to this argument it's not the primary focus the primary focus is that the board failed to look at any evidence to support its findings as to why  question is why why does a person orders really are do all these changes that's the question and that's where the evidence is lacking right just remember one of the board say the reasons would be the board is well if you have the battery load on the car it provides a better stability but lower center of gravity well where does that come from ok number one there's no evidence anywhere the stability in dallas is going to be a problem is not a case of first impression this is an appeal we're the only issue is did the board have substantial evidence to support its findings from what's the evidence on motivation the shows a laptop if one wants to use a p c instead of a laptop one has to make some changes in the structure in order to accommodate to accommodate all the peripherals they're going to p c system and all i wanted to do in order to make the system compatible yes if you use a p c a little laptop you don't need to have a keyboard because a laptop doesn't have all so the element that adds that you can just have a and you have a keyboard so now all you have the senate system you have this compartment that moves up and down that's part of the health system and it's empty because you pull the power supply into the bracket on the here's here's a concern i have if you argue that we can rely and expert test your expert testimony yes but even if the evidence was an uncontroverted on our can we rely on it when we have ample case law saying that the people have has to articulate reasons for its decisions and we base our decisions on on the review on the cadets analysis surely you agree that  what you're saying they essentially relied on what he said without crediting the art the argument that they relied upon was the argument stated by so cite t r petition because our petition was based on the declaration so what they said is yes if they quoted our petition as saying it but the information came from doctor  on the question of commercial success you're asked where the nexus is this is a case where the patent owner filed all series of applications that have in various combinations they have a b c indian one claim a b c in one claim a b c any and another claimed they all overlap each other it's it's a situation where they what they've done is they aggregated a bunch of features that were already in prior art devices and combined them to make a mobile cart there was no evidence in addition to the lack of nexus there was no evidence to support their declaration which purported to put in commercial success no one the affiant was really an officer of interim metro but he could not possibly have any idea of the sales of all the competitors or the size of the market because he cited nothing he had no reports from anyone if no information at all he just made an estimate and he said the market is very large and everything is covered by  the in their brief interim metro claims that their claims are not limited in any way they just brought up and they include all of these elements but there is nothing in the claims which said that all these elements can be removed really used in the system and taken out and swap whenever it is necessary they are not in there by any permanent method what about the plan our discussion i had with your opposing counsel yesterday the point our patent shows is a housing that certain circumscribes the entire hole near the base and in that housing which is the power supply there are some batteries that could be moved in or out that is at the lower end it doesn't have to be exactly underneath that it surrounds the irwin testified about that he said that it wouldn't work that way and that's where the board said his testimony was not credible the use of eight hour supply down at the said this is mechanical engineering what i want it would have to be in the base because it's probably a lead acid battery and it's heavy it's like a car battery right so it would be in the base so there was nothing non obvious about putting this have a battery down at the bottom it would not it would still serve as its counterbalancing function and still be out of the way and if it would disclose the elements of would do these things he says just like causing cancer the they could have done these things they might have done these things but he doesn't give a reason why that would happen and as we went through before the reason the board opted out of these products there's tremendous commercial success when it goes to the actual obviousness thank you thank you