the power to save cost and freedom supposedly enhance flexibility i'd like to emphasize today what i think the briefs in the record make plain and that these are made up reasons the point i made during the argument is that you cannot eliminate the conductor in the in the cable and we've established that again without refutation from apple in our principal briefing pages thirty to thirty one where with reference to figure four of allan the wires between alan's power detection circuits seventy four and alan's ac identification circuits seventy seven seventy eight would have to be run two wires would have to be run to the end of the conductor if you were going to make a substitution or excuse me move our brains receiver responders to the end of the connector you're saying in front of me is not the same as what you say in pages twenty seven and twenty there's some overlap but not my problem was your honor they didn't raise the cost saving argument until the reply bri i mean i think the record establishes that there is no way that you could save money by eliminating the cap in the excuse me a conductor or wire in the cable just it's not there it's just a made up reason apple on the board say moving the conductor or excuse me the circuit from the power supply to the conductor would enhance flexibility but i don't see how that enhances flexibility as pointed out in the brief if the cables permanently attached a permanently attached cable and then on the other hand the other dead end is that if the cables detachable and you put the circuitry at the end of the cable well then you have what we call the mismatch problem because that cable can be put hand we have the potential for dangerous operation i can't believe that the law would recognize such a trade off and then the third point of the flexibility issue which apple clearly raising for the very first time english already for good morning in may please the court the very first statement by appellant makes apple's case here and that is that the board found three different motivations what camargo wants to do is three argue the case they want this court to waive the fees in some cases conflicting opinions of the experts and the arguments that were all considered in the final written decision and second guessing the board and that of course isn't proper under to stanch will evidence test which in some cases not and precisely your honor in some cases there was no challenge to the proffered motivation these is let me try to just go directly to the points here because i think they really determine the outcome of this appeal first of all the opponent's argument appears to be based almost entirely on this idea that apple did not raise the cost savings a motivation to combine the calcium and location of the circuit until i reply brief that's just not true it is clearly stated in at page thirty eight of the petition which is page five twenty four of the appendix the petition itself in turn cites to paragraph ninety seven of dr davis opinion which is appendix page six zero one wherein he cites for further support what is now appendix pages three ninety three and three ninety six which are the castleman reference and so with respect to castleman we don't simply have a colony asking this court to second guess  it's asking this court to second guess castle i've never seen any case when that would be appropriate we take one of ordinary skill to be fully appreciating the disclosures of the prior art and there's no disputing that castle in itself the prior art describes the motivation to place the circuitry in the output connector where and six zero one is the  there's a close call here at all this isn't a case where there's even a challenge to an x for not having a basis in it's in the reference itself the motivation is there with respect to the brain reference again and it was clear i think from the pilot's presentation here this morning that there is not a dispute that there would be some reduction in power the magnitude of that reduction was in dispute but the board acknowledges in detail in its final written decision that it weighed that and it's decided that even if all we had to go on in this case was the testimony of dr davis regarding the power savings for replacing allen's one way signal with a call in response signal like bring teaches then it still would have a sufficient motivation to combine but a pilot has an even addressed the other issue that the board raised and of course written a petition this is the classic application of sort of the common sense test th tests are taught for the back i've been practicing long enough and i remember i had to point to this board to the trial court to explicit teaching of motivation to combine and this case we do believe we have with respect to dr davis but of course tests are envisions a situation one of ordinary skills confronted with two known options and that's what alan and green are alan and bring not only are addressed to the idea of providing power to a mobile computing device they're not only addressing the issue of how to solve the problem of letting that mobile computing device know the nature of the power supply but they both have a solution and the only slightly different alan teach is a one way constan communication of a signal so that the device knows the nature of the power supply and brain merely explains that you know what you can do this more efficiently and only send that signal when you're asked to do so by the device that's the classic example of one of ordinary skill taking now options and applying them in a predictable manner and i would submit that if if it's not alan inbreed there would not be any combination that would meet that test and that's the point as any other questions for me thank yes i suppose i was on notice was i apprised of what the argument was what they were driving at now but if you look at castleman come sixteen he's talking about cost benefit in the sense of if you have a legacy device you save money by putting a memory chip in the end of a conductor as opposed to reopening it up device and forty four in the chip in there that's not the argument for making here  now i have a hard time believing that dr davis is testimony that it is competent i mean he flat out said i made a guess i didn't do any study and i concluded that maybe he'd save a few thousand somebody would employ the receiver responders instead of the continually broadcasting circus because are you going to say you're so powerful how much power in it if we're going to have a flexible analysis of  of obviousness in light of concerns in the design community the marketplace and an extra i think you have to take into the fact that if there's no gain foreseen or benefit to be real has happened here you explain that with regard to the power saving issue you explained it with regard to the cost saving issue and with the flexibility issue the evidence doesn't support those reasons it's to the contrary the evidence points to the fact that the person of an ordinary skill would not have been motivated to replicate the invention