obviousness without regard for the novel advances in play or excitement ushered in by the claimed elements and without regard for the secondary considerations of not isness which are particularly dramatic in this case and third  function is in that cause and and then direct me to we're that with the structure corresponding to that function can be found  in the deafness is a legal issue but there's an underlying question effect which is whether one skilled in the r would have understood from the specification that there was a link between the structure d would recognize and the addition of the reals this is not the signal that causes that wheel to rotate it is a signal corresponding then you get a chance to play the secondary game and the generator here is generating a signal that indicates that the the regular wheels have come up with whatever it is that is required before you can get to the bonus level that's right all right so now we're weird we find the structure of that corresponds to that trunk it is whatever structure it is they generate that particular disclosure of structure which is what the statute requires well i mean i understand if this if this specification discloses if we're talking about a random signal generator for example you might make the argument that that one of ordinary skill in the right understands a random signal generator to be a piece of structure and that you don't need to disclose anything more it's just like disclosing a box with o truck and you could say that well that the truck has rules and it claim can say norms for making the wheels turn and expert would say well normally that's going to be an internal combustion engine that's not good enough if there's a new it was it was so typical in the industry to use rand generators to send the signals that a want to school in the art director with eyes that what was the structure would have been the structure and that a juror should determine that but i would like to move out into other claims of  mean was with them they would not have looked rubbish and for any of that i did that only come up despite all these machines that were supposedly sold that come up with only one manual with out of date it's very weak documentary evidence and it's not enough we think to take away from the jury  when the patents filed for that's when the prototype was displayed and the timeline shows that six months worth of work was required in order to reduce that to practice and if you go back six months you're before the displayed date of the real cold and there may not be  the smog dispositive or a slam dunk but it's enough evidence we think to get to a jury and again the judge should have taken that of the jury's hands were there any inventor no books introduced are there wars but if it was from the period mischaracterized that the game penn inventions is just putting a wheel on top of traditional real slot machines the court should have focused on the actual pet elements some of which were preexisting in the are and some of which were totally new and reduce excitement but in fact it allowed the player to call over friends and relatives to say hey i just won the bonus game come watch and somewhat unexpectedly it actually heightened excitement more than the conventional wisdom taught the same thing with next level in dition from the five seventy three pat you might say what's the big deal it's just a symbol that tells you get to play the second game with another thing here is that it's actually under real themselves so that no matter what happens on the first two the five seventy three same with the the last feature in the in the five seventy three pad you could you can't lose on the on the secondary gain because you don't have to put up a bet in order to play it and that was something very different as well  most of these machines most of these these successes they have their fifteen minutes of fame and then get pushed out by the next big thing but the wheel of fortune the commercial buying this of these patents has been at the top of the heap for over a decade now and still still going strong and display and so it was very limited and it didn't have the enhanced functionality the logic device or the game you want to check that's disclosed by the six ninety eight and the prioritizing really from having a separate player tracking touchscreen because it would be based on element and if you have your appendix open if you can look at page two thirty three or whether it's enough that it communicates stop positions for spotting the payoff the most which is what we said and i think this environment it shows why we have to be right because if you look at it you'll see the number fifty fifty dollars on the wheel three times once at the top and then twice at the bottom if the the generator communicate the number fifty to the control unit who wouldn't know where the wheel should stop there's three different potential twists whereas if it communicated a stop position which is what we say it necessarily would communicate a payout amount because there's only one hour to stop a solution and in addition as we pointed o that were not wheels for example the boss pad which we mentioned is it had a stationary wheel with like a clock him that will take it around well that would they would fit claim twenty seven but it would not fit the district court's construction and there's evidence shows and the district court found that not only is this obvious it had been done before there's two patents issue there's a number of issues in this deal obviously but the two patents that issue i'm referring to  we should start i submit by asking ourselves taking one or the other of these what is it that was new or unique that was invented by the inventors of these patents so we started six or six patent your hono invented that i can't think of anything else and that he testified that he came up with the idea by watching that will fortune game show he testified that he doesn't know how to program code he testified that he couldn't even physically a fixed wheel on top of a slot machine he's an idea man it's all b s i did it people are very rare can hire somebody to do the program  well but the issue i would submit your honor is whether that idea just simply putting a wheel of fortune type event on top of the slot machine in of itself was something that was new elements of the claims and as i do t argues we need to look at the claims as a whole but it's also helpful to have some understanding as to what was the belief either expressed in the specification by the inventors as to what what which of those t says there's three things they point to they said that when the prior art it would have been obvious to combine them let's take each of them your honor the first is the concept of pre determined result and this relates to the six four six patent i'm grouping these paths together and for the record your honour's the idea that you would use a random number generator to have a pre determined result is something they point to they say it's not the ark and they say it would have generators in slot machines by the early ninety's everybody was using a random number generators to get pre determined results so the price of the second question would have been obvious that you just read a number generator for this machine if i'm an becomes what it had been obvious that you'd use a random number generator in connection with that secondary will the answer is indisputably unequivocally yes that's the wait everybody did it that's the way slot machines worked in the early this case they're saying it would have been obvious to use a random number generator a position i would submit doesn't pass the red faced us and the tell a story in the earlier case the take the exact opposite opposite position which is where the reasons why well is the reason why judge the district court found they were stopped from taking that position this case because they had successfully taken the opposite position in the earlier case push that spins the wheel that's all of this a button you push to spin the wheel then there's your invention new or unique we already know that are we on top of a slot machine is in the art we've cited fortune we'll pick art functions in the same matter it doesn't lead to unpredictable results either k s r that isn't enough to give you pattern you can't simply say oh no it's bothered to klang a specific combination a specific way so i should get a patent on that under the case are that the supreme court has said that takes away opportunities for skillful men to women to be able to develop new technologies and that's in a book that's beyond w push just then the slot machine reels now i don't know the last time your arms have been there if you ever been to see you know but remember they used to have the handles that you pull to spin the wheels they still have those handles but no for a symbol that tells the user that they're entitled to play the secondary game that set a banana on a real the next and next level and issue now the question is i already know from the prior art about the idea of putting a wheel on top a slot machines you have a secondary game we've already showed that the prior art they don't point they don't claim that's not an art they find this next level addition is not there so the question  ordinary skill in the art and they already have the idea to put the wheel of fortune on top of a slot machine would it be obvious to me to include a symbol on the base a prior art is you work your way through the kinds of these patterns you get down near the end to claims that have four or six or eight elements in combination and it's the specific points is because in the briefing we had submitted the luminous advents before the district court and not on the record of the piece of prior art that we believe in combination renders these patterns obvious response to that we've got these three points that were made about items that were not the art and that would not be obvious to combine and so i'm simply addressing the three points that they have addressed but i agree with your honor that in combination with all of the other not but my point is simply if we didn't have a specific reference that had an actual edition that says you're taught to play the game the notion that it wouldn't be obvious to a person that you'd be able to do  that again i would assume that a person of ordinary skill would would have a basic understanding of how users play games they want to know when the secondary will win they're entitled to cumulative of the fortune will reference the pickguard reference is a published patent and so that should be easy reference and there's no argument that those references are prior art and both of those references also disclose we on top of a slot machine so we would submit even if your honors agreed with my duty and we hope you don't on the evidence or point that it doesn't change the result or in terms of the manual and interestingly just bryson pointed out the tension between the arguments on the two appeals here as to corroboration and whether there's enough evidence here i think an interesting point to note is the dispute in the prior argument was that went to functionality there was no actual machine in existence and people were talking about how it worked and so there's a question as clearly rises to the sufficient level to be relied on by the district court mr booth testified that he let me take a step back to get some context because these briefs there's so many issues in these br this in some senses that if we had more words there were that we might be able to make them a little bit clearer but on the fortune we'll just give you a yarn or some background there's a company called project point and that company was in europe and it made games and it decided came up with this game fortune wheel and soul fortune wheels but it also sold conversion kits that would that manual and instructions and they dissemble they basically build a fortune will machine using a base game and that's why there's this conversion manual in the conversion kits and  machine that's what we're relying on in one thousand nine hundred three he testified that he remembered getting it he testified that he got two fortunate wheels and he remembered that this was the first one he got honor that no reasonable jury could conclude that this fortune wheel was not of this manual was not published not available to the public prior to nine in the record i can turn quickly to your honor's question on the ninth three to an where is the structure and i agree with counsel as to the function but it's very important that we ask that illiterate question what is the function and function is that the signal simply activates the way it does not it is not the random number generator that controls the spinning of the wheel that's something else it does not determine where the will stops that's not a function of the function it's simply a signal it's generated one of the sim at least one symbols on the base game and that signal tells the will ok turn on reactivate that's it ok ah so the second question is where is it in the answers it's not there it's nowhere in the specification below  t refer to column four lines forty two forty five which is a description of the random number generator controlling the spinning of the wheel apparently councils abandoned that because in response to your honor's questions he was not a dentist by that section and i don't it's i would submit to your honor's that is not the structure that is talking about a completely different function that is controlling the spinning of the wheel and where the wheel stops it is not talking about the correlation between the base game having a symbol that causes a signal to activate the wheel it's a different function and it's not a specification anywhere address the six nine eight touchscreen patent and here also the district court's decision on obviousness is plainly correct here also we have two pieces of well here we have thank you positions in the two cases we don't say that it wouldn't be obvious to apply that rule or method to two rules but we do say is that tell us disclose one little slot machine we said it would not be obvious to to combine it with all these other elements that maximize player excitement that are disclosing the two level games that are written here mr hope a sort of made fun of the idea that actuated buttons were not of the prior but the district court article in the appendix that talks about mr adams and how he came about coming up with these inventions and what he said is that the current generation inventors they were too busy to deal with mechanical issues in the items making thinks it's profitable for casinos he said they were ignoring what makes these games exciting and fun to play so he proud through the casinos interviewing players and you know that the old cases talk about flesh and genius but that's kind of what we're dealing with here his genius was to understand that you had to combine own words some of which were preexisting in the art and some of which were not and despite rooster hope and so is the next level in detail that was i'm a realist themselves do not exist in the  for example with regard to the fortune deal manual you'll see that they're not dispositive at all they're very genuine material questions affect and secondly it's different from k s r because here there is no evidence that one skill who are reasonably would have selected these elements and combined them in this way it's a much more complex situation you've got bally's expert testified that there's an infinite number of variations in game design and inventors in question here were able to see through all of that infinity and come up with a combination of elements that were really against the grain of conventional wisdom and proved to t