seven is the simple substitution of one known element for another that it shaves a predictable result it is not it replaces predictable with unpredictable according to  ninety four column thirty nine and lines forty through forty nine quote normal use condemn the sensing arm of the sensors two thirty six and two hundred thirty seven and actually change the output signal values even though of the sensors are still functional thus the sensors should be recalibrated at the beginning of each or day in order to ensure that the sensory signals are correct are quoted this passage on page twelve it's a pelican brief but it left out quote and actually changes the output signal values even though the sensors are still functional unquote why did de thirty eight would quote actually change the output signals unquote it substituted and make the signals incorrect cleveland spring thirty eight is designed to be bent backwards when in use with minimum maybe that's not within the skill of the os i've no it isn't it is not in the skill of the art in fact calibration did not come up until a reply brief in the in the i p r and it came up because m response to that at eight four eight eight forty six the error then said welton it could be calibrated and that that it's routine calibration and calibrating the bend of the spring is not routine calibration there is no evidence let alone substantial evidence no evidence that a bending spring can be calibrated as a combine moves through the field when that bend spring is part of the hike sensor so we are have a record that is totally devoid of a central element of proof to prove that this combination could work  thirty through sixty and basically what it involves for a rigid sensor arm is setting a maximum height value that is when the arm is totally off the ground so that it's not sending a signal that's the it basically says that there are relationships and this is functionally linear and so in between the output signals are known to be a certain height off the ground and that eighteen ninety five column thirty nine at the bottom line sixty six and sixty seven it actually basically says it measures tight measures taken on the assumption that it's a linear relationship when you completely flexible bendable spring there is no real linear relationship not only that the way cleveland operates your honor is its downward force is intended to keep it at the bottom of the  our position it's impossible but regardless there's no evidence let alone substantial evidence to support what's an impossible it's impossible to calibrate a bending spring like trick like cleveland edge of go that is flexible when if you need objects that would cause great kids to the vehicles that's what the specification teaches in fact that twenty five twenty seven years ten years say that it's impossible to calibrate the flexibles frank in the context of a high heat sensor if there there is no way to to what is i don't even have to prove it's impossible your honor there's no evidence that it can be done that's i'm confused i thought the path and require a flexible or the the graham pattern requires a generally linear flexible arm right so how is it impossible to calibrate that because the generally when you're flexible arm in operation and this page is twenty five twenty seven and twenty eight year acknowledges and mr lucas testified that that spring and a person of ordinance going out would know that this has to be sufficiently  finding that the purpose of the cleveland probe assembly is to detect elevation changes that is from the deepest portion of the furrow and that purpose remains unchanged from cleveland but that's not what a cleveland teaches and it's really quite apparent when you look at figures six you'll see that the cleveland arm  is to be in a vertical attitude in alignment with the bottom of the fur bearing member forty four stays in the bottom of the throat where one of the actual moves laterally in other words when the driver doesn't keep it for winds thirty nine to fifty four it basically says that the operator knows immediately the moment that the probe moves out of vertical alignment so that the operator can take immediate action to correct it while the bearing members in the bottom of the firm so consequently i believe one does not teach the detection of changes of elevation and what the board did was use that teaching of changes reason to combine our position is there is and as my time is running down i want to go from want to assure that is the reasonable expectation of success brams position is that there had to establish reasonable expectation of success at to that issue for the same reason i talked about it on the motivation of combining there is no ability to calibrate it spring there's no proof of that so therefore the or should lose on that issue and the case should be reversed in addition we have two other arguments regarding the rotation and sizing that also go to that issue and show demonstrate and demonstrate that there is no reason why expectation of success on the sizing combination has to fit in a small area at the end of a corner divider and so there's an inherent physical limitation because this is going on but dear to my daughter it has to fit in th that imitation exists the evidence is that it couldn't be combined if it's there and that's an additional reason i'd like to reserve during my time good morning substantial evidence supports the finding of obviousness by the board below and i'd like to go right to the substantial evidence and the point that appellant makes about calibration first calibration claim ten and claim ten was found to be obvious by the board that was not appeal calibration was found obvious based on channel two ski there is no statement of calibration in claim one claim one does not require calibration the appellant discusses the spring of the character and nature of the spring as if it were something unusual and a posi it would not be able to deal with the spring in cleveland is not described it's flexible or mallet line sixty flexible long it's going to the laxest adapted to maintain a straight configuration in absence of bending forces being applied or the combination was to take the spring from cleveland and apply it to jump to ski why because the problem to be solved was the shaft was breaking but the shaft was breaking make it flexible and that's what was found in cleveland a flexible chef the issue of pre loaded and i'm glad that appellant brought it up is really one of the key issues in determining what's required by claim one claim one does not say it has to be calibrated claim one doesn't say anything about the spring other then it needs to be a pre loaded flexible space there was no dispute in the claim construction of what pre loaded meant in the claim construction was requiring a force to bend or flex with that definition the spring only has to require a force to bend or flex we asked the inventor what he thought of that as a preloaded spring or not and whether it would be successful for accurate height detection and the if it meets the requirements of being preloaded properly it can actually tell the changes in the ground and question and preloaded just saw a crystal clear means the spring preloaded means you must apply a force to the spring in order to bend it correct that's all that needs to be done and a person of skill in the art can deal with a preloaded fr thirty seven and simply explains very briefly calibration is done by appropriate rotation of each rotation sensor about its associated shaft using the four minute slots and it's done in a full down position jim bluesky has columns of a description of how you do calibration is calibration needs to be explained any further than what the adventur it's it's a red herring it's not something that's required by the claims as for the other points that helen made i think the theme of this case is from our perspective of how it and changing the combination that was presented by dear to the board and relied upon by the board to come up with something that appears to be inoperative so the ninety degree rotation the record evidence is clear and mr mattoo sic admits that in ninety degree rotation he well he says it can be done he doesn't say it's outside the skill of a policy and what he says about the ninety degree rotation and further issues i think is very important for for us to remember mr two six decoration starts at twenty eight thirty five and there was some discussion of this  the brief paragraph forty three where he sat as he says that it could be reorientated thirty degrees this cleveland spring and it could function as a vertical height the texture but he quibbles with the fact that it might take significant modification and trial and error and then it would result in some of the functions of the claim that the features of the claims like the language of a clue and if you go to paragraphs eighty sixty eighty nine what you find out is in order to construct something this is at the appendix twenty eight sixty three to sixty four in order to say this will not be small enough what mr  eight and that's the basis for him saying that it would not be robust enough that's the evidence that's countered with the evidence from mr lucas saying at that and second he says it couldn't be enough mr lucas says it was this is a simple question of weighing the evidence and the court we suggest you not really weigh the evidence which was found and discussed thoroughly in the seventy some dependent claimed that deals with shielding the elements as a placebo would claim twenty nine and the board found that claim twenty nine was obvious remember the only claims on appeal are one in twenty seven claim twenty nine was not appeal that obviousness decision stands and it says if you have some issues were dirt is getting in the claim itself twenty nine says for shielding from dirt and debris you have to guard play that's what i see i want to address a couple of the issues that nestor rhodes keep brought up and one of those kind of the changing positions of the year versus based on what we started out in the petition and what the evidence was there and now where they are and here and i refer to a third team forty four paragraph one one thirty eight and this is of the lucas declaration three lucas is trying to justify replacing the context sensors of chima lucy with the cleveland the cleveland spring thirty eight and he states that it would have been amounted to nothing more than the simple substitution of one known element for another a procedure would have understood that replacing the context would have still been still be sufficiently rigid so as to allow the accurate measure of the header height unquote so that demonstrates that there is all an expert understood that had to be sufficiently rigid after reading  the claims and that a person boarding or skill would have understood that so the idea that now we read out any sort of limitation on the flexibility which means literally that you can have a slinky be your arm because a slinky does come back and further when mr rose he talks about the arm it snaps back when not in use it's not in the long gated linear shaft when it's in use which is what elements one into a claim one and element two of claim twenty seven say so what is happening here is it's a story which in time no pun intended where the army is is of cleveland is