motivations to combine these four elements from unrelated prior our preferences and attributed those motivations to the prior art references themselves but the references simply do not say what the board cleans and the first example of to combine those references was that using multiple buffers would reduce cost and there's simply no support in the reference that the board referred to that supports that the only reference to cost reduction in waters which is what reference to multiple buffer system and then flipped back two pages and waters to a completely unrelated aspect of the information where walters explains that if you transmit programs in thirty minute segments rather than entire programs that can be are and your are is that just doesn't make sense you can't attribute a motivation relating to a completely unrelated aspect of a prior art reference as a reason to combine some different and separate aspects of that prior art with the invention  and just as a matter of common sense the theory that you can combine or line up multiple buffers in series and thereby reduce costs doesn't make sense it's counter intuitive and it's certainly not supported by walters the reason that's cable the board said that leave disclosed to minimise fragments and then it incorporated of the reclaim there is a motivation to combine those two minutes fragments with the primary buffer in the d v r but there's simply no motivation to combine their what the computing what is the optimal segment size to transmit under these transmissions this is from lines thirty one to fifty two and there is a single reference there that's around one thirty seven where in the first step the does it divides up a program into segments each of which only has one frame of video and then the algorithm what you do is mathematically you repeatedly combine those segments until the formula tells you that you've reached the optimal transmission size and th up anywhere leave and it doesn't make any sense but beyond that even if you thought ellaline disclosed a system where you stream and then store a de minimus amount of data after transmission that's the transmission phase leaders would say anything about lovers are where the data goes through on its way to being recorded at the head end before the transmission size and there is no relationship none whatsoever between how many offers that data passes through on the way to the hard drive what the size of those element i want to combine and i went to a completely different page of the specification and found the motivation describing it completely unrelated aspect of the invention and said well that motivation for this fact asked did the invention is a reason to motivation to combine were not supported by substantial evidence in addition to those two references which are by themselves grounds enough to reverse the board's decision there was also a separate independent error in the board how in the world would you why would you reach into walters and say oh let's take these multiple buffers the borderline and well they would do that because walter says it'll reduce cost but i don't see how walter says multiple offers will reduce costs or something about walters that reduces cost but not multiple buffers so two points on that first buffers do reduce cost and walters and i'll get back and explain that a second the second point is that the board also relied on increased performance that's a tied to it's tied to such an embodiment reduces cost to the receiver and this is where it has set out to separate embodiments one that sends whole programs and one that breaks programs up in a thirty minute segments and which has such an embodiments use multiple buffers that's correct but only one environment is articulated and reducing costs that's correct and that multiple buffer system allows the overwriting which is the cost savings discussed in column six so the buffer system works very much like in the claimed invention here you have the initial buffer the primary buffer the information comes in a text of it to see if the program has been ordered if the program information it checks to see if there's a good data in that's embedded periodically in the video data that stuff that's stored in the storage in the controller in the buffers in the controller segment and instead of needing two hours of space on a d v r to record a two hour long program if you're going to record thirty minutes and then the next thirty minutes next thirty minutes i'm just going to overwrite isn't all that this is overwriting it like if i had an old fashioned tape you're  young to remember those but like an old fashioned cassette tape you could just you could record something on it and then guess what you can actually record over it on the same thing and then that way you save stories that is about all that's at issue here is recording a thirty minute segment and then the next thirty minute segment and instead of putting it in a separate spot in memory just recording it on top of the original thirty minutes which is exactly what the second buffer allows the system to do because the second buffer in the controller holds it because the when the viewer is watching the program that program is that first segment a sort of memory and then that segment being played out of memory but so that second segment is downloading that information while that's that first second it's being played and it has to hold it in the controller until that information is provided to the viewer so then it can overwrite the system so that there's there's no breaks in the system and so there's no latency problem so the way that water's teaches us the primary buffer and the secondary buffer that's how it can get the cost savings in the storage so i would submit that the statement in column six where i taught it's about the cost savings in the storage in the receiver is directly facilitated by the true buffer system that's taught in and so i think there is there that is substantial evidence for the motivation to go buy in on cost but even if you don't agree with the cost one board also found it improved for the examiner also thought improved performance is another reason why you could use  buffer system here and import that into else and you're getting if you get improved performance because you are transmitting less information over the over the transmission lines so you get less bandwidth requirements and so it's a more efficient system and that the ability to have the two buffers to allow different if you wish of the data happily impacting in parallel also allows increased performance and and that allows the users to view the data in real time the ordinary school in the art would understand you could fragment video down into smaller segments and then repackage them based on whatever design considerations you have on both the receiving side and on the reception side and that's what lead teaches lead teaches that you can minimize the end with on the server side you can also minimize band with on the story side the client side and what it does it looks at both of those and tries to find what value of the number of it breaks the data down to single frames and then adds additional ones to find the optimal segment size so it is actually storing each frame at one point and then it built upon so it does teach storage of single frame is for it maybe just a very short period time but still sort of the single phrase and so one of the ordinary skill you are looking at this would understand there's a lot of different ways that you can set up a system to  fragment and minimize provided they minutes and out of data and then transmit that over the system based on the end with requirements on both the sending side and the client side the transcript reads right or greater as a lot of references it is but but the examiner here all of those references come from the same field of art it's all the transmission rate and recordings of video programming cablevision came up with this invention is to get around sony like the whole reason they came up with this is to get around the copyright problems with d v r xen homes and try to reduce the amount of storage in your home and it's i don't know i mean you're awfully lucky this is a very deferential standard of review that's for sure well the as your first point as to the motivation as to why the applicants put the known and familiar examiner and the board found motivations within the references themselves and used them to extol how one of ordinary skill the i would put these known components together in ways that everyone understood how they acted to get predictable and expected results so i think substantial i'd buy that by looking at the motivations to combine provided by the board and the and the examiner there and trying it to a legal determination it would make the claims indefinite if they really try to read in this day minimus copyright construction then you will have circuit courts and they have different decision of what exactly demand misses and then so you would have different standards depending on where you look at it in the country so the person of skill is the judge and i found some cases say the judge is neither that's correct so i render the claims indefinite and so then again you have to look back to the objective analysis and the board and the examiner pointed out motivations are combined you know for all of the administrative user is the only entity that's able to configure the hard drive so therefore what we're doing schoolyard and reading that would understand that that could also apply to the service provider and not just to the different users and that is the section that the board examiner relied upon to find that motivation to combine so their argument with respect to the board's failure to find a service would understand that you could use that to provide exclusive control to the user that would prevent the service provider from configuring the hard drive guidance in the specification for the content of that term just more you commented that the government was the detail was lucky to have a differential standard of review but i don't think that's going to be enough for them here and the reason is that even under substantial evidence review the rationale of the board itself gives has to make sense if they say a reference as a certain thing the reference actually has to say that and i think as you put your finger on during the questioning of the p t o that's a standard they can't meet the board said the examiner said the reason to combine the multiple buffer system of walter's with these other references is that it would reduce costs and then they say there's a particular passage from walters and there is nothing in that passage for all the reasons that i think came across clearly during questioning that says that increasing the number of offers reduces cost the most the walter says is the but walters says this system  incorporating that aspect of walter's all that the board and the examiner took from authors was this multiple buffer system and that has nothing nothing whatsoever to do with reducing costs so under any standard of review however deferential there it was twenty three twenty three years twenty five twenty three years between seventy and your invention in this case as applied for that's a long time for people to be puttering around to find a way around so many long felt the failure of others why didn't you argue any of