we start with our cases for today i'm going to turn over the role of presiding judge to judge raina because i am going to make a motion myself before the court plain which is stand up i'm going to move the admission of blame larson who is a member of the bar and is in good standing with the highest court of texas i have knowledge of his credentials and i'm satisfied that he possesses the necessary qualifications so blayne has been my clerk for a very long time and just still ask me how many months i don't know a lot he probably knows the exact number i'm sure but it's been such a pleasure to have him he has helped me with some sister and his wife has also stor so he's used to to being in an off email environment especially with his daughter now and he is just cool and call him and so when i get worked out he just stays all it's a nice it's a nice contribution to the chambers in addition to his excellent work as a lawyer he's just got such a wonderful personality and i'm really going to miss him but it's a great joy to move ok thank you for indulging part our first case for today is two zero one stay dash two one five two smart door holding versus edmund industry mr for relates to the combination of birth and much much more nervous than i thought i would of the arguments that you've made in your brief is that the arguments in the brief were about whether quite a number and but it will have a lot to look at the per just real quick from three different points of view because i think the board misunderstood the thrust of our reasoning and maybe it wasn't clear enough from the writing so in three stages i think i can really sharp in that and then it with which relates to a generator which does have regenerative braking there is there's no dispute as to the facts in the case we the facts of the reference are there it's described the the reference with the fire door of share are and it seems straightforward is just looked at in one way but if the references are considered context by themselves and to state them it seems to make a lot of sense and i'm not saying it doesn't make sense in the abstract but when we look at the reference asleep at the burke reference doesn't express a need for any additional current that doesn't want extra power if you combine the references you get something novel so that's one way of looking at that but let's s exactly what it would sound like an interior look a little more closely what is it that you are replacing because the more the motor of shape operates go up and down and it has  governor already it doesn't really need anything out there if you just put the reference to side by side someone who is ordinary scholar would say well i could do a lot of things but why what's my motive i kept her but this guy doesn't seem to need it and the motors just going one way putting it on a door replacing a governor it sounds simple it would be a big deal i don't know how much of she would get destroyed but you could operates through the four stages that the motor will power the door open and regenerate when it's closed so it doesn't seem like a big deal it doesn't seem like a major change in us but here we have a new product we have a new effect it's a new result we yes we've combined them and we do get a new result and that's put into a real invention it claim doesn't just recited a way of recovering energy it ryssdal lates to an entire operation of the door through all of that cycle so again by itself it means nothing about let's let me take a second approach and just disagree with myself and currently say yes let's way now let me just disagree with myself a third time and the last time let's just do it forget any other consideration which is going to combine them in the best way we know how when to slap that second or changes is a question of fact and you didn't introduce any evidence in the form of expert testimony that would have caused the board to believe that these combinations that to changing shape and burke be claimed in convention would have been difficult for a skilled artists and they had an expert on the other side and the difficulty you have now is we're not a court of first impression we don't get to we have to look at the record and we can't disturb an opinion on a fact finding mulatto unless it wasn't supported by substantial evidence here you have the highest eckler ation and we don't have any eat evidence to the contrary in the form of any declarations to the contrary so i don't know how i could conclude that there wasn't substantial evidence for what the board found in deciding to make this combination and you have to tell me what evidence there is that makes it clear th board's decision wasn't supportive not just try to convince me a new like this is a do over it's not a do over well  well that is a motivation to combine but it doesn't look at the perks he sought which gives a little further insight into what you can and should and shouldn't be doing and considering something an o we're getting to a c motors they are going to work in the same they run in one direction or reversals and the concept would be  a literal interpretation of the reference as women would literally arrive at something that in the claimed invention wouldn't work  well there is nothing i can point to with regard that another case suggestion to combine cannot require a substantial reconstruction or redesign of prior ar find motivation to combine and therefore concluded the claims are obvious this conclusion was not surprising given that smart or as you just heard has conceded that they did not put forth any evidence of combination he talks about sums as best i can follow there's going to be two motors and you have to do a substantial redesign as the courts already noted there's no evidence related to that in the in the record this is a straight forward combination substitution case rental manufacturing cited in the brief cited by the board it's a combination of familiar elements according on methods healing for the couple results all the evidence points to that conclusion supports that finding and there's nothing that can possibly  whether the the art was from the same field of endeavor but it was whether they concluded that the art was recently pertinent to a problem solved by the seventy four patent that interested in argue the relevant finding in the briefing  about and as well as here that you could combine the references that it's possible to and it wouldn't destroy the teachings they have some question about how difficult it might be again no evidence  and there's some suggestion in the briefing about secondary factors that are your attorney argument completely unsupported by evidence we respect the motion to a man the only argument that you've heard him make is that simple why the prior with the motor so nothing further ok we think both counsel cases taken under submission