company seventeen day sixteen ninety six case of obvious with respect to the claims are appealed in that the board did not sufficiently explain and support its conclusions with substantial evidence that one of  chosen to combine the records here the board found that they claimed inventions might be obvious not that they would be obvious that they might hear the board failed to provide any evidence that the reference is can be combined suggest in this appeal the order has combined basically to reach two references however the examiner had combined for references for the basic rejection the board decided that the other two secondary references the threaded connection of the couch one twenty six patent for the electrode could be entered changed with a resilient during the last tick fit and that there would be some motivation to do faster easier independent replacement of the electron well we take issue with that in that first the reason patent which is the secondary reference replied upon to show copper there's no electricity passing through those points so it's not an electrical connection they have no evidence whatsoever on this record to show that this is elastic that can be used with a electrode where you have current passing through at a very very high amperage the primary reference says that there are at the end of this torch tip we have sixty this secondary reference of really there's no teaching of how you're going to apply this the lord never explains how this is going to happen and in fact they ignore the issues that we in the nozzle so that the market can pass through otherwise you know you say the well they didn't address them at all they just said is that really true i mean i'm looking at the board's decision at pages forty two and forty three and it's specifically addressing the pattens owner's argument that the explain to me why that analysis on forty two or forty and forty three isn't sufficient under substantial evidence or standard sure so in that analysis they really don't say well how are you going to overcome the resistance problem how are you going to overcome the alignment problem as we pointed out in the repacking we have a ceramic insulator there's no electrical connection and therefore you don't have the problem of electricity passing through here and again we're talking about a plasma torch something that's meant to cut through m so the electricity that's passing from the cathode to the electrode at that point has to be very secure well let me let me give you my take on what these paragraphs say quick and it doesn't seem to be all that clear but it seems to suggest we recognise that really has problems but given the motivation to get the ease of this different connection people would make that trade off the isn't that good enough isn't that a good enough reason that you know because they i think they also suggest that nobody show this wouldn't work that it might be not as good as th understand that why you're making the argument i mean the only reason to get to readers for the specific type of connector right the rest of the stuff is all in the other parts yes but the the motivation to use this full first replacing the threaded connection of the electrode with the last it fit every but it's not that much easier to get out except for not having to you still have to remove all of these pieces in the couch one twenty six pack to get to the electrode but what the reed is really talking about is the really talking about  insulator and having that their solution that they and the problem they had was directed to the fact that these two pieces were usually permanently attached together it has nothing to do with the being removed i mean basically the electrode what they're saying is instead of having to unscrew it we can now just slide it out but what i'm set to saying is is that the scientific principles that one skilled in the art would be burdened with is the knowledge that if i take away those threads now i'm just going to have a pressure elastic set and that's similar to like if you had a car your you  have a car and you have i mean it wasn't that the luddite has screws on and you can take that off we're not going to replace that with a elastic fit because of the brave problems that you're going to have if that we'll come saw what we have very good that's the problem here the board and it find that there are three problems which wouldn't which would go against motivation combine it you may know and again i don't find their reasoning to be a solace or could be theirs as it makes no representation as to the greed of which this fit would be inferior well so it's not like changing from a  push and thing on a car where the whole thing might collapse we don't know that in fact it recognises it might be inferior but it's worth the trade off well the problem is we don't know what the hypothetical device would be there's no way of really this so we have to rely on what one skilled in the art would know and those are the scientific principles that have not been disputed by the appellate and that when you have this but again that's the problem i mean they make the replacement but again read is directed to the easy implementation of independently replacing the nozzle with respect to the nozzle base with respect to sure but it doesn't have to teach it precisely i mean it can be directed to something else i think our president makes that clear yes i mean they're just going to read for the elastic it's up the i combine language i don't think i would combine versus might mine makes any difference to me what i'm concerned about is the fact that nobody has shown that the prior art teaches he would use no right and that's at least an important distinction between reed and this invention and the only thing we have to suggest that you could use a reed to make an electrical connection is as far as i can tell just a conclusion by the board without touching any evidence are you saying that again maybe you can explain to me at the bottom page forty two they cite a bunch and they cite some parts of reed to support that does any of that suggest a motivation to use reed to make an electrical cum nation or all we rely on really is an accent and a couple  sentences later at the top of page forty three that is just a conclusory sentence without any support whatsoever that one of ordinary skill might have choose and to replace threaded connection and c with the resilience that an agreed to do all this stuff but i guess there's some motivation to combine by making and you know trade off between he's a possible less good electrical combination makes sense to me but there's not an expert report there's no kind of statement and there's no citation in any of the evidence that that is actually true that somebody would make that that is the board's conclusion how is a good enough  i'm with you so but where is this invention it's not just about a mechanic changing to different mechanical fit the electrical connection is from critical to the front right  so where in the city where is substantial evidence that they would have opted to swap in reed to make the electrical connection as well  i don't recall were they were they said that i believe that the virus case i said in their response is that just because they don't explain specially discuss every positive negative aspect doesn't mean they did consider i or we could get here right now but the board only relied on calton read to the examiner rely these other two references if ever out there do they show anything about using this resilience that as an electrical connection  if they made the electric entirely electrode out of copper it included resign members and where did the board say that that this was back to the argument where they say it would be they would adjust the size of the resulting fingers and the m confidence such that it would have their program of resistance which was never actually they did the other good the other argument that  already included in comes from twenty six different temp which doesn't really affect conductivity in any substantial way if that's his argument what's wrong with that well couch did not say it was made of copper but even the low copper would have the right conductive into conductive and everything that's not really what we're saying the problem is we're saying ok we have these threaded connections with the celts reference which provides this sufficient amount of surface area so you don't have buildup resistance when you build up resistance it's going to get hot we're talking about sixty thousand  per inch squared every time you remove a piece of metal that's going to increase your resistance by one home and if you increase it by one zero zero one zero zero zero difference of resistance is going to result in a c in that kind of torch thirty six megawatts of difference so we're talking about if we're going to portray this conductive any of the copper doesn't matter yes it's going to have the right board sets it's the reason for the motivation of combining here i think that's how i read that last sentence the bottom that paragraph and forty three but again they don't cite to anything to support it they don't cite anything and maybe you can read between the lines is that what the reason is but they didn't state that and they didn't state that and what the and i would say that they can't get a statement that says that the resistance