point the board's decision should be reversed and the court need not reach the other issues that we raise and he will including whether kobayashi teachers away from the combination with the rock i think the issues regarding motivation to combine  all the rest of the components that make the computer system functional are located in the docking station and i think this is the critical disclosure that shows why there would not be a motivation to come by or motivation to add these interfaces six lines thirty six to thirty eighty ppm two does not contain a power supply for the system or human interface units and therefore always means the docking station to work so all those teach a technical argument that colby actually does not itself disclose power in the handset and therefore nobody will put any of the processing but a couple of points on that first there is an express disclosure and kob power supply in a processor is defied by that it doesn't seem to me that as a basis that anybody held anything in this case because one of the two references you used in the obviousness rejection has it so clearly one of scale new york knew how to do that it's  do that i want to keep the components in this p p m to the minimum to allow for personal processing capabilities and adding power supply in these additional features that they have these input output devices that makes them more user friendly but perhaps in his view a little bit bulky to be portable remember kobayashi is ninety three so he says i'm going to discard some functionality in favor portability like the portable device more portable isn't focusing on the separation of devices it's focusing on and keeping them on one client's and so moving into the next paragraph the board says kobayashi expressly teaches  arms and ability to take the already known batteries of devices like overdosage and put them in go by actually if they want it was simply the observation that if you're moving the interface and you need a battery to use them it seems almost as a matter of practicality that they would put the battery and a distaste either way you could frame it for the idea of having a battery in the handset because the batteries were really big and bulky and would have caused the device to be much larger but as you move forward in time to the time o switches two thousand at this point you're getting everything is getting smaller i mean every year things shorten right in the electronics industry so as you're moving forward if it is the case that people overcame the big battery problem and figured out how to make small little batteries that could be therefore more portable why should i read kobayashi and its docking station technology as not being receptive to that so long as the new system didn't create the problem of it's going to be so large it's going to be like hauling a laptop around the understand that was his concern his concern was batteries are too big and if i put the power in the handset it's going to be way too big but as you move forward in time and things shrinking get smaller maybe the new technology allows for the utilization of its docking station but with smaller more compact portable devices even though they have a battery why is it not ok to use a reference in that way it's almost like you think because the reference stuck in time in one thousand nine hundred five teaches a way for one reason even if later references can overcome that reason you can't use it well there's a couple of i have a couple responses that first of no other than as i'm going to give you