the next case for argument just sixteen one six seven one eriksson versus intellectual ventures might give it a chance to clean out here conclusions on both anticipation and obviousness were each based on the issues never raised by the police and for it all of the record evidence from both sides will see the contrary can i i've got a problem with your case and so i want to give it to you so you can address it it seems to me that none of your arguments go beyond how we should interpret the record and given the deferential standard of review i have a hard time seeing how you leading us to a path that would get  around and the sub part of that is there also credibility determinations implicated like dr starke i guess his testimony you know value if you testimony where there was testimony on the other side that too is an area where we have to show do you agree that there's a difference between frequency hopping on a base station and allowing frequency hopping by phones that use of a station i think to allow frequency the reference and i just feel well enough i know that's not the way i read it to tell me if i'm wrong i mean the board made it through its conclusions by reading the references by evaluating the testimony of experts by considering what i think it fairly construed was no mission by your counsel as to what the reference set is and putting all of that together it strikes me that that's clearly a substantial evidence review is it not it is it will it's a  substantial interview obviously but there's no substantial evidence in the record if you look at what the board found that a seventeen reason it says that there is no interest of patients is because it says the column five point four to seventeen could be understood only at most that the system described in the four eighty patent supports the modulation specified by the d s m stand it but that the evidence from the other side's expert even agreed that this part of the specification indicating support for the standards themselves not just modulation you can't have a phone a base station that just does modulation if i could direct your your honor to the testimony that eight to five five being we asked dr wells specifically agreed it supported the standards and this was the basis for the board's holding and that's why there's no substantial evidence on it dissipates for obviously restart that there's legal errors to get through or you get to the board's actual finding in the first one being the failure they point to the g s and standard showing how this element is met and to so there's no differences between the part of the claims the only difference alleged with respect to the base station itself and the for it open was that the  analysis which is all the board did just completely unmoored from an understanding that everything's in the prior art there's an expressed motivation combined expressed teachings for how the frequency where is the express motivation what's its to its in two aspects first of all if you look at wall where the grand factor is not a material dispute and the obvious of the claim is apparent in light of these factors and that's precisely the case here everything's in the prior art communication combine the secondary considerations now the expectation of success do they render the claim as a whole obvious and that's the al i directed here g s had explicit instruction for how the frequency it was a standard it was designed to be implemented and based so people knew how to make the stations to follow the of memory but the analysis of the court actually did do for why the prior allegedly couldn't frequency hop itself based on issues which were never argued by intellectual ventures and for which no substantial evidence exists in the record  need to do for frequency hopping is update the math what the real position below was was that they couldn't do this fast enough every four point three milliseconds to support g s and frequency their expert had no scientific analysis ours did proving it was five thousand times fast enough but the claims don't even require frequency hopping under g s number every four four point three milliseconds you can frequency hopping and at every hour every day and still satisfy these planes and with dr wells concession that put that's admission that the could updated on a period sufficient to support frequency but more more fundamentally we have a prior base station this mark to be identical the only difference is in the claims are you said in your in your red roof and i underline the language of eighteen at the bottom in one thousand at the top of sure seems to support your statement and i want you to with that is that what this comes down to i mean this is very difficult technology at least if it isn't and so it seems like what it comes down to is whether or not the four eighty even includes implements describes the system that implements frequency hopping and that's what the underlying issue is with respect to all these arguments for anticipation of it your honor and i would want to just i draw the court's attention to the one thing on the question whether the finding  standard they consider the part of the pattern itself they construed claims they looked at the specification and then of course in the anticipation analysis there necessarily considering the differences between the prior our claims and then on the motivation combined if you had only it's fair to say that there wasn't a the case it was cognizant of that requirement and then when it comes to the final decision the issues on and on obviousness had really boiled down to two questions that was did the skilled artist and would that skilled arson have had a reasonable expectation of succeeding combining the teachings of jesus and the fordo patents and it's inoperative village and it's not fair to criticize the board for focusing its final written decision on the two things that were really in dispute there and on those issues the board was supported by ample substantial evidence on both question we have a that everyone agreed that it was mapped on the tedium bus by figure three and off the tedium bus by figure six the board agreed yes you're right to talk about figure six and they came up with yet a new theory for why it allegedly couldn't support frequency hopping and this was the board's final this was the one that substantial evidence need to support and that's at appendix forty one this is the only reason that they gave for why this somehow fan support frequency e p ram unable to go to a figure six does not determine which slot is associated with  passable that was all there are going to blow the board never credit to that conclusion because all of the scientific evidence was a contrary and plus the claims don't cover every four point three milliseconds to cover any frequency up and so you don't even have to map it but i there were the arguments for why you couldn't work correct but that's not what you need to prove here expectations for us was shown the only thing they are the inventors did was add this piece of memory and the undisputed evidence was that doing so w something readily apparent and readily available to a person skilled in the art house or not an expectation success thank you