so we're consolidating the first three cases this morning for purposes of argument and stuff if you t three one for work fifteen one three one five and fifteen month read one six that's for three says motive power alleging obviously as each to proffer evidence of why a skilled artist and i would combine the references to arrive at the claimed invention in the board needs to analyze that evidence or the la which we respectfully submit requires this court to reverse the conclusion of obviousness turning to the specific claims your honor first with respect to claim five depending claim five that claim the reference relied on this there by my friend is to modify bissett to take a sprint sprint thirty two which is on the piece called a frame which is a part of the target and to move that to the  honor if we look for example the shootings in the chu case it was a bag filter a mechanical device and what the court said there is there there was simply knowing now almost just done of why you would make the modification that the examiner made it so that you would be a design choice and that is a problem and that's why this court reversed similarly in the gall case your honor the federal circuit faulted the commissioner for not explaining how or why this would be done now both of those cases also emphasize that an important factor to look at is the function here and i'd respectfully submit that the board had looked at the function they would have found that they are very different this spring in this it is to make an electrical connection a visit teaches that explicitly this it says nothing about that spring being a mechanical connection that does what claim five does which is providing tension for so that you've got spring force to hold that brush holder in these environments claim five explicitly says that the board's general expertise in the subject matter may provide sufficient sufficient support for pollution that's to peripheral issues but with respect to court factual findings in a determination the path ability however the board cannot simply reach conclusions based on its own understanding or experience or on its assessment of what would have been basic knowledge or common sense well it seems to be reading the opinion the one thing that seems to be missing here board starts off with an analysis which it purports and heads to say what the petitioners contentions are and then it moves forward to your arguments which it deals with in great detail i surmise reading it and i may be the only one that essentially the board subs so silently was telling us there were doubtless such and the adopting the analysis and what they've laid but in terms of the petitioner and then they say ok we're accepting that except we're going to consider your essentially the same argument that there was nothing of a drastic would you combine it and if we look at the ford's final decision on climate you're just absolutely nothing they are they don't even claim eight use the word design choice i would submit under this fourth president i can just ask you a really technical question is please with that three different cases the mounting block issue is presented here is that the same issue that mr court is presumably going to talk about and if hypothetically you were would have resolved this issue however we don't think that in memphis necessary to achieve this because because of the clear disclaimer in the specification in column fifteen mind twelve we have a statement of the lower mount block sixteen being the only portion that must be fixed in the specification we have the word fixed income fifteen we have the statement about welding painting holding we have the figures which show bullets being inserted into holes that hold that thing in place we take that all together we have a circumstance where the path is so in a situation like this when you're comparing you know expensive removal selected fall over on to this side where you say well it's ok i think the reason is that we're reasonable in the broadest reasonable interpretation standard i think on mounting block the board has embraced a construction that just goes beyond everything in  specification and that's not reasonable i do want to make sure we have a chance to talk about the nine hundred sixty and then also expand again we see some of these themes the board is vitiated structural requirements that are in the independent pla to you don't connect to yourself two structures may connect to one another and so that's what should happen here couple to trouble you're really really broadening their connection with that's correct you can't bring something in the connection for them it's already there that's right and so we think this is a clear structural physical limitation once this court will do cleans that up the board rejection under clean fourteen falls apart and that's because of the way the rest of the claim fits together claim requires a be i think we have two attacks on the offset reference first this theme we've been talking about but the board failing to respect the structural definition in the claim applies unclaimed nineteen for homestead claim nineteen says the brush catch includes in debt and the teeth of the brush catch if the brush catch includes a spring that needs to spring has to be inside those little teeth somehow that's not what's happening great anticipation here this is a one of two rejection there's not structural identity  elongated support structure what's wrong with the claim construction and do you need to prevail in order to take those questions in reverse order i think the other arguments we've presented provide a basis for reversal this is understanding of the word the would absolutely consist with what you say it should be but i feel like you're living in a plain meaning world and not only up to what you actually disclosed was a being in your own pattern and that's why i corrected your initial statement about is it construction but the matter of the substantial evidence supports a determination that that particular structure in the just part reference fits the definition or not respectfully i'm not sure it is at all clear that the board viewed rigidity as part of the because it applied expressly flexible it has to be a support structure how can you have a non rigid support structure of rubber band the support structure i agree with you on the one hand and yet i'm bound by where the board said only said which is resilient members flexing back and and when i'm talking about the horizontal surface i'm talking about the face of the rail that extends affordably from that base and extends to a point that's that's i believe with the board found  leaf spring that comes off of the brush catch the brush catches a generally kind of straight member with a tooth coming off of it and there is a spring attached to it just isn't the only step reference there's a fresh catch twenty five in the board  found at the recently and part of almost at the bottom of the being there it's only that small part of the flex because if you look at the bigger we were just looking at it almost at the top part of the beam actually fits behind the box and only the bottom part of the flex and that part is and then there's a separate piece one twelve which is the spring they're two separate pieces so it's the brush stretch includes a spring by having something connected to it just  i think if you look back to page eighty two of the board's decision they indicated they considered the prior art the petition for the better response to the petition reply and the arguments made if your hear and they went on to find play made regarding the president doesn't that quote say where there is a design need or market pressure to do so there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions a person of ordinary skills good reason pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp you left out the first part right and that's the part they're complaining about their complaint is it's not enough to just say it's a design choice but the supreme court is in there is a design need or market pressure to solve the problem then like me like the blanket but i don't see the board's opinion you may have articulated some good reasons in your brief but i don't see any of those in the board opinion itself as to where th think all i can say is i think that the board identified it as a design choice recognize that there were two possible places based on the prior for them and said that it would have been obvious for a skilled artis that's why the word didn't say anything that that's not about argument and if that is what their opinion had said maybe this is feel like a really different case to me but their opinion doesn't and what about the fact that the two spring electrical sprain and the movement is not not only going to are you going to move it but you're going to entirely change the function and nature of the use of the spring and that's all just going to fall into the not to design choice so i don't think a change against at least a portion of the brush holder component when a brush holder component is mounted to the melting block so the but when the spring from this it is moved from the base to the melting pot there is no evidence that the spring force is going to be satisfied n problem with that is you may be right and you may actually be able to convince the board of all of that that the board didn't address it or analyze it or anything how am i supposed to do that an appeal to replace their two w design choice with everything you just said about how the springs would or wouldn't operate if it were moved i mean we're changing the nature into police department disclosure goes up the functioning of this frying we're moving into a different place and there's the rest of that element that they don't explain i don't know i don't know how i can read all that into the words design choice without any explanation i think the only thing i can say are is that i think their dress the parties arguments and expressly said it was no evidence and then she wouldn't it is there's no evidence at all that it would work that way if it was removed because they don't have the burden of proof so they didn't say it wouldn't that they just said there's no evidence at all that it would do any of that if it were  truth i think we argued for that the combination of the spray would be moved to the modified mounting block and during the course of the proceedings they raise additional arguments really as we responded to this but i think with the petition we argued for the combination of the modified mounting block to include this and it and that's what the you know the broadest reasonable interpretation i think still has to be consistent with the specification and cannot read out about the board found of respect to if you incorporate the word fix it would in their opinion read out certain bottles from the service yeah i think part of the board's opinion is that they weren't sure what fixed meant because this fix mean that you can't fix it and then unscrew it take it off and put it back on so they were york you are correct with respect to the beam eyes i think the board properly found that there's no reason to limit it to our bridges the structure or a straight structure  pattern when it's pushed all the way on that over the center locking the mechanism extends it couples or you can undo it and it's disengage but still coupled to the mounting block and if you go to  and if you're at that age there are a set of three figures that are indicated there in the left hand side it illustrates the mounting block and green and in the middle position is the disengaged position you'll see construction of what jutting out really add to talks about something that does extend from the surface and i think the board properly found and the only step reference of these that it extends from that horizontal surface upward from that horizontal surface no example of something that was described as projecting out of the cuts for its part and it was a little and but it did it project out from its surroundings there were walls all around it so i guess for me it's hard to understand what projecting out means or their construction if there were it was projecting out from one surface but there are walls around it with that still the projecting al you know i don't understand the limitation of what projecting means in their mind so i think what you're saying is if those those walls were there on the side of it and if there would be  think what that means is these brush holders can be mounted they're mounting block can be put on sort of the swing of alarm i swing it out of place you've got to work on it move things around and you swing it back into place turn the machine back on get back to work i think that's at least one example of what moving relative position that position is dictated by physical configuration of the components it will never come into selective coupling in any other position every time you use it the brush goes to the same place and that is the one