[00:00:01] Speaker 03:
7, and then universal electronics.

[00:00:06] Speaker 03:
Begin.

[00:00:06] Speaker 03:
You know you're ready.

[00:00:08] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:00:08] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:09] Speaker 02:
May it please the Court, in this appeal, UEI requests that the Court reverse the Board's decision finding claims 1 and 12 through 16 obvious in view of Gardner, Hu, and Drayson.

[00:00:22] Speaker 02:
I'm going to make two arguments that are reflected in our briefing.

[00:00:26] Speaker 02:
The first one is that the board's finding that the Gardner Who combination teaches the limitation a second app installed on the device whereby the advertising content is provided to the second app installed on the device is not supported by substantial evidence.

[00:00:44] Speaker 02:
And the second argument is that the board failed to articulate a motivation to combine or modify the Gardner Who references.

[00:00:53] Speaker 05:
I understand that the second app receives the advertising content and then it's going to function to display that as an overlay.

[00:01:05] Speaker 05:
Is there anything in your application that tells me why that claim limitation is there?

[00:01:12] Speaker 05:
What is the advantage of having the overlay on the display device as opposed to another one of the hardware components?

[00:01:20] Speaker 02:
The way I understand it is that what you're doing is you're having kind of like a real time analysis of what's on the streets of the media.

[00:01:29] Speaker 05:
Could you point to me something in your application that tells me the benefit gained from this claim?

[00:01:37] Speaker 02:
Benefit, yeah.

[00:01:40] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:01:42] Speaker 02:
Let me look specifically for that.

[00:01:44] Speaker 02:
But as I'm looking, I can kind of tell you what we're dealing with here is it's kind of like that real time.

[00:01:51] Speaker 02:
You're getting the media streaming to the display from the media streaming device.

[00:01:57] Speaker 02:
And then you're also getting this advertising that's kind of key to what's on the display.

[00:02:03] Speaker 02:
That's the important thing.

[00:02:05] Speaker 02:
It's kind of a real time.

[00:02:06] Speaker 02:
It's looking at what's displayed.

[00:02:08] Speaker 02:
or it has the knowledge of that through the app and it's able to key certain advertising to what's being shown on the display like for example I guess you're watching

[00:02:22] Speaker 02:
baseball and maybe they They're able to use I don't know what baseball watchers you but but there's certain advertising for a baseball watcher is then overlay on the Baseball game Sure Something like that.

[00:02:40] Speaker 02:
So so so that's kind of that's like answer your question or no, no, I

[00:02:45] Speaker 05:
I was thinking Ted Lasso and biscuits, but anyway.

[00:02:53] Speaker 05:
My question is, why couldn't it be on, for example, the middle man device with the media streaming device or the network server device?

[00:03:05] Speaker 05:
I mean, why does the overlay have to be on the display?

[00:03:11] Speaker 02:
I think that's because that's what the users watching and that's what you want to send the advertising to.

[00:03:18] Speaker 02:
That's the way I understand it.

[00:03:20] Speaker 02:
Because you're saying that advertising content to the display, it could be a TV or it could be, let's use a TV.

[00:03:27] Speaker 02:
It could also be like a handheld phone where you're having a program on the phone.

[00:03:34] Speaker 02:
But the point is, as you're watching that, there's this

[00:03:39] Speaker 05:
I don't want to believe it.

[00:03:42] Speaker 05:
I'm just wondering if there's something in the specification that talked about that particular claim element.

[00:03:46] Speaker 05:
And that's fine.

[00:03:47] Speaker 02:
I was looking for it, but I will find that.

[00:03:51] Speaker 02:
So anyway, the two main arguments, and I'm going to get into those.

[00:04:00] Speaker 02:
The first argument relates to the board's finding in its decision.

[00:04:10] Speaker 02:
It's just incorrect.

[00:04:14] Speaker 02:
The board completely misreads the claim and doesn't apply the art to the relevant claim limitation.

[00:04:21] Speaker 02:
And I'm talking about appendix.

[00:04:28] Speaker 02:
And this is not disputed by the director, but this is appendix five.

[00:04:34] Speaker 02:
where the board is discussing the examiner's decision and making its own findings based on that.

[00:04:42] Speaker 02:
And then you can see that

[00:04:47] Speaker 02:
It writes it.

[00:04:49] Speaker 02:
It thinks that the second app has to be installed on the media streaming device.

[00:04:53] Speaker 02:
And the claims are very clear that the second app has to be installed on the second device, which is the device with the display that we've just been discussing.

[00:05:03] Speaker 02:
And that's repeated over and over again throughout this page when it makes its finding on whether the gardener who combination teaches the second app installed on a media streaming device.

[00:05:14] Speaker 05:
It is a little bit unclear, but am I correct that 108 refers to the display device?

[00:05:22] Speaker 02:
I think that that is correct.

[00:05:23] Speaker 05:
So the reference numeral is correct.

[00:05:25] Speaker 05:
The parenthetical is incorrect.

[00:05:29] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:05:31] Speaker 02:
But that's repeat.

[00:05:32] Speaker 02:
I think that's right.

[00:05:33] Speaker 02:
Let me just... Yes, the third device is the device with the second app.

[00:05:41] Speaker 02:
That's what the board is using.

[00:05:42] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:05:44] Speaker 02:
But it refers to that as the media streaming device.

[00:05:48] Speaker 02:
And obviously, the claims say it has to be the device with the display.

[00:05:52] Speaker 02:
And that's repeated throughout this page.

[00:05:55] Speaker 02:
I want to say it says it three or four times.

[00:05:58] Speaker 02:
So there's no dispute.

[00:06:01] Speaker 02:
The board's decision is wrong and should be overturned for that reason alone.

[00:06:07] Speaker 02:
It can't support substantial evidence.

[00:06:09] Speaker 03:
Couldn't it be just common sense

[00:06:12] Speaker 03:
on the part of the person skilled in the art that you can display this on a third device.

[00:06:19] Speaker 03:
It's like, hey, let's do three devices now.

[00:06:25] Speaker 02:
Well, are you saying, could we take the claims and then have another device and put advertising content or media content on another device?

[00:06:35] Speaker 02:
I mean, I think that is possible.

[00:06:37] Speaker 02:
The claims don't require that, but I think that's possible.

[00:06:40] Speaker 02:
Are you saying if someone's skilled in the argument?

[00:06:43] Speaker 03:
I'm responding to the question of whether you suggest that the overlay model can be on the third device.

[00:06:50] Speaker 03:
And I'm just wondering, looking at the degree of suggestion, wouldn't it just make practical sense on the part of a person skilled in the argument to try to move this to a third device?

[00:07:03] Speaker 03:
greater advertising, more exposure to the whole thing.

[00:07:07] Speaker 02:
Well, to the extent I understand your question, there is a third device discussed in Who?

[00:07:12] Speaker 02:
And that actually goes to a second argument on this.

[00:07:16] Speaker 02:
There's no evidence in the record showing that the

[00:07:20] Speaker 02:
that what they're saying is the second app could even be installed on this third device.

[00:07:25] Speaker 05:
What about paragraph 116, which is the one they seem to rely on, and the board cited, it says the third control unit 652 can execute a third software 666 to provide the intelligence of the content delivery system 100.

[00:07:40] Speaker 05:
And if you look at that content delivery system 100, it includes the overlay operation.

[00:07:45] Speaker 02:
So you're correct, and I was going to get into that.

[00:07:48] Speaker 02:
Paragraph 116, I think it's fair that that's really the only paragraph left that either the director or the board cites to for this limitation in who.

[00:07:58] Speaker 02:
And our position is that doesn't disclose that the second app can be installed on the third device.

[00:08:07] Speaker 02:
I mean, who teaches very clearly, and this is not in dispute, that the only two devices

[00:08:13] Speaker 02:
that can be installed, that the content delivery system 100 can be installed on are the first and second device.

[00:08:22] Speaker 02:
That's very clear.

[00:08:23] Speaker 02:
And I think what paragraph 116 says is it has software to provide intelligence of the content delivery system.

[00:08:32] Speaker 02:
But I don't read that as saying it can be installed there.

[00:08:35] Speaker 02:
I think that's a lot different than saying the specific software of that second app

[00:08:43] Speaker 02:
can be installed on the third device.

[00:08:47] Speaker 02:
I don't see that.

[00:08:48] Speaker 02:
I think they've given examples.

[00:08:49] Speaker 02:
They say it's like.

[00:08:50] Speaker 05:
Do you have expert testimony?

[00:08:53] Speaker 05:
Probably not.

[00:08:53] Speaker 05:
No, we do not.

[00:08:54] Speaker 05:
It's expert, right?

[00:08:56] Speaker 02:
We do not.

[00:08:56] Speaker 05:
It's just hard because it's a substantial evidence question.

[00:08:59] Speaker 05:
I see what you're saying because paragraph 116 versus at the end of the patent around column 13.

[00:09:09] Speaker 05:
You know, this is not column 13.

[00:09:11] Speaker 05:
Paragraphs 188, 189, 191, and 192, and those on page 1284, suggest that the overlay is just on the first or second device, not the third device.

[00:09:23] Speaker 05:
But this language here, is it enough for substantial evidence to support the words fact-finding?

[00:09:29] Speaker 02:
But to be clear, it's not just the overlay.

[00:09:32] Speaker 02:
It's the specific app that needs to be installed on the third device.

[00:09:36] Speaker 02:
It's a specific app that, yes, eventually generates an overlay, but it's the specific app that what it's doing is it's working with the other servers and all that to produce the advertising content.

[00:09:47] Speaker 02:
And it's not disputed that in Who, this third device doesn't have

[00:09:54] Speaker 02:
doesn't have this what they're calling the content delivery system, what they're calling the second app.

[00:09:58] Speaker 02:
It doesn't have it installed on the third device.

[00:10:01] Speaker 02:
That's basically beyond dispute.

[00:10:04] Speaker 02:
And so not only is the board's, there's really two arguments on this limitation.

[00:10:08] Speaker 02:
The board's decision doesn't make sense.

[00:10:10] Speaker 02:
It's inconsistent misreading of the claims because of the whole media streaming insertion.

[00:10:16] Speaker 02:
And it should be reversed for that reason secondly now if you dig down you have them saying the second app is installed on the third device in who and Who is very clear that the the content delivery system can only be installed on the on the first device or the second device?

[00:10:36] Speaker 02:
and that is that appendix one two one two eight four at paragraph 188 191 95

[00:10:46] Speaker 02:
So UEI's position is that the board was unable to show its decision that the limitation of second app installed on the device, whereby the advertising content is provided to the second app installed on the device with a display device, is not supported by substantial evidence.

[00:11:07] Speaker 02:
And then the second argument I'd like to get into is there's no motivation to combine

[00:11:13] Speaker 00:
in the board's decision we we have who and we have to be before you before you move on to that this is just rather connected that the return uh... you can one sixteen uh... one sixteen does talk about a third software uh... which i think is part of the third device which is one of eight which is the the uh...

[00:11:37] Speaker 00:
the so-called device in the claim now at issue, the third device, and it says the third software to provide the intelligence of the content delivery system.

[00:11:48] Speaker 00:
So there seems to be software on the third device.

[00:11:53] Speaker 00:
Why does that not include the software that is the overlay module?

[00:12:03] Speaker 00:
Not the overlay, but the overlay module, which is what produces

[00:12:09] Speaker 00:
And I think the overlay module is this so-called second app.

[00:12:17] Speaker 02:
I touched on this, Judge Toronto, before.

[00:12:19] Speaker 02:
Our position is that that private intelligence and this additional software is not the actual what they're calling the content delivery system 100, which they're referring to as the second app.

[00:12:35] Speaker 02:
It's completely different.

[00:12:36] Speaker 02:
And it's very clear that is only installed

[00:12:40] Speaker 02:
on the first device 102 or the second device 106.

[00:12:43] Speaker 02:
It's not installed on the third device.

[00:12:47] Speaker 05:
One thing you said before is you said there's no software that's executed.

[00:12:50] Speaker 05:
What this clearly does is Judge Toronto suggests it says execute.

[00:12:55] Speaker 05:
It can execute a third software 666 to provide the intelligence.

[00:12:58] Speaker 02:
I agree that there is software that's executed.

[00:13:00] Speaker 02:
It's just not what they're referring to as the software or the app, the second app.

[00:13:07] Speaker 02:
It's different.

[00:13:08] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, so the intelligence of the content delivery system 100.

[00:13:16] Speaker 00:
So there are two pieces to that, and I guess I'd like you to clarify.

[00:13:20] Speaker 00:
What does Who define as a content delivery system?

[00:13:25] Speaker 00:
Is that software?

[00:13:27] Speaker 00:
Is it a collection of software?

[00:13:30] Speaker 00:
Is it the entire system, which includes the various devices and the software?

[00:13:35] Speaker 00:
And then maybe second, what is

[00:13:39] Speaker 00:
the intelligence of this system?

[00:13:43] Speaker 02:
So I believe the content delivery system is the system, the software that you use to send specific media content.

[00:13:50] Speaker 02:
That's my understanding.

[00:13:51] Speaker 02:
And I think the intelligence would be maybe... Right.

[00:13:55] Speaker 00:
So can you help me see what the basis is for your understanding?

[00:14:03] Speaker 02:
Of a content delivery system?

[00:14:05] Speaker 00:
well yes there are several pieces here this 116 is I think obviously central to this and so if we're trying to figure out whether this supplies substantial evidence for the board's conclusion I at least would like to understand this crucial sentence better than I currently do okay

[00:14:32] Speaker 02:
The content delivery system is software that is used to send content to a display.

[00:14:44] Speaker 02:
There's no dispute that it is not on the third device.

[00:14:53] Speaker 02:
Who only teaches it being on the first device and the second device?

[00:14:59] Speaker 00:
uh... and providing right so so i guess that is the trouble i'm having with that uh... phraseology which you've used a couple of times is that perhaps aside from one sixteen individual embodiment described in who don't put this particular piece of the intelligence on the third device but maybe one sixteen dot and if all you're saying is that the rest of who doesn't

[00:15:29] Speaker 00:
I'm kind of not interested in that unless you can tell me why 116 doesn't.

[00:15:38] Speaker 02:
So if you look at paragraph 134 of the appendix 1279, that goes into

[00:15:48] Speaker 02:
the third control unit and the third software that was discussed, 666, for the other functions of the content delivery system.

[00:15:56] Speaker 02:
It talks about receiving location information, interacting with the communication path.

[00:16:02] Speaker 02:
But that is really the way I interpret the providing intelligence of the content delivery system, not actually giving you

[00:16:13] Speaker 02:
all of the software that's required by the content delivery system.

[00:16:16] Speaker 05:
I have to be honest with you.

[00:16:17] Speaker 05:
Your explanation you just gave, referring to paragraph 134, I'm not following why what you said is compelled by paragraph 134.

[00:16:28] Speaker 05:
So you might want to go into more detail.

[00:16:30] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:16:31] Speaker 02:
So I mean, I think the way I read this, you have to piece it up to 116, what we talked about.

[00:16:39] Speaker 02:
The 116 talks about the third device at appendix 1 2 7 8 and then a third control unit and it goes in it talks about all these different All the requirements of the third device in the third control unit and then and then I'm taking that and I'm going to 134 and I'm At 1 2 7 9 and then I'm I'm reading well.

[00:17:00] Speaker 02:
What is this third control unit really doing?

[00:17:04] Speaker 02:
and it says it can operate the third user interface to display information generated by the content delivery system.

[00:17:10] Speaker 02:
So it's clear that it's like, it's... But what about the next sentence?

[00:17:15] Speaker 05:
Third control unit 652 can also execute the third software 666 for the other functions of the content delivery system.

[00:17:23] Speaker 02:
Right, but the 666 was just a limited, that was a, that's a sub

[00:17:31] Speaker 02:
component.

[00:17:32] Speaker 02:
It's a separate component from what we're talking about as the actual the content delivery system.

[00:17:40] Speaker 02:
And that actually makes that clear.

[00:17:42] Speaker 05:
Paragraph 116 says that third subverter 666 can provide the intelligence of the content delivery system 100.

[00:17:50] Speaker 02:
Right, but I think both those paragraphs make clear that the content delivery system is not on the third control device.

[00:17:58] Speaker 02:
It's separate.

[00:18:00] Speaker 02:
The way that the way they discuss it and I think that's that that's one our point that it's it's somewhere else

[00:18:18] Speaker 01:
The 75 claims recite a method by which a first app on a media streaming device sends advertising content to a second app on a display device.

[00:18:31] Speaker 01:
The second app then functioning to display the advertising content as an overlay at the display device.

[00:18:37] Speaker 05:
Could you speak just a little louder for me?

[00:18:39] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:18:42] Speaker 01:
First off, I want to respond to two quick points.

[00:18:44] Speaker 01:
First, I think Judge Stoll, you asked as to whether the specification described specific benefits of putting the overlay or the second app or the overlay module on the display device.

[00:18:53] Speaker 01:
And I'm not aware of anything in the specification describing a benefit of that particular setup as opposed to other setups.

[00:19:00] Speaker 01:
And I think so from there, I want to get to two arguments.

[00:19:05] Speaker 01:
First, I want to talk about

[00:19:07] Speaker 01:
Council's arguments with respect to paragraph 116 of Hue.

[00:19:12] Speaker 01:
And so paragraph 116 of Hue states that the software that's running on the third device, 108, can execute, can provide the intelligence of content delivery system 100.

[00:19:25] Speaker 01:
And there's no dispute that content delivery system 100 itself includes the overlay module 722.

[00:19:31] Speaker 01:
So paragraph 158.

[00:19:32] Speaker 05:
Do you get that from figure seven or something else?

[00:19:36] Speaker 01:
So, um, figure seven shows it also, but I think in terms of the description, it's all paragraph 158, thank you.

[00:19:42] Speaker 05:
Did you say 158?

[00:19:43] Speaker 05:
Yeah, 158, yes.

[00:19:44] Speaker 01:
It states that the content delivery system can include the content module 716.

[00:19:56] Speaker 01:
And then paragraph 163 states that content module 716 can include the overlay module 722.

[00:20:02] Speaker 01:
And so there's no dispute, I don't think, that content delivery system 100 can include the overlay module 722.

[00:20:09] Speaker 01:
I also want to respond to the point that the director somehow concedes that content delivery system 100 can't be installed on the third device.

[00:20:18] Speaker 01:
I think that's just wrong.

[00:20:19] Speaker 01:
I think the examiner laid it out pretty clearly in the examiner's answer on appendix 1026.

[00:20:31] Speaker 01:
The third examiner relies on the second full paragraph as referring to paragraph 116 in Hue as illustrating that all of content delivery system 100 can be installed on third device 108.

[00:20:48] Speaker 01:
And the examiner further explains here that Hue also teaches that third device 108 can be included in public device 204, which is the display device.

[00:20:59] Speaker 01:
A couple of other points I wanted to respond to pretty quick.

[00:21:03] Speaker 01:
Paragraph 134 in hue, council cites that as an indication of what, like certain examples as to what the intelligence of content delivery system 100 can include.

[00:21:13] Speaker 01:
But I think as Judge Stoll you pointed out, that paragraph is not limiting, and I think it actually supports the director's argument.

[00:21:18] Speaker 01:
That paragraph specifically states that the software that's running on third device 108 can provide the other functions of content delivery system 100.

[00:21:27] Speaker 01:
And what follows are just examples of what those functions are.

[00:21:29] Speaker 01:
But it's not exclusive.

[00:21:30] Speaker 01:
It doesn't say that it cannot provide overlay functionality.

[00:21:34] Speaker 05:
What about the fact that like paragraphs 188, 189, 191, 195, they say, oh, that the content delivery system can be on the

[00:21:46] Speaker 05:
was that first device, and then it says it can be on the second device, then it says it can be split between the first and second device, and nowhere in this part of the application does it refer to the third device.

[00:21:57] Speaker 05:
What should be understood from that?

[00:21:59] Speaker 01:
Well, Your Honor, we think that the Court should not infer some sort of purposeful omission from that passage in Hugh.

[00:22:06] Speaker 01:
That passage in Hugh does not describe 3rd Device 108 at all.

[00:22:09] Speaker 01:
So it's not a situation where it's describing 3rd Device 108 and it left out that sentence.

[00:22:13] Speaker 01:
And second, I think that it made sense in that passage not to describe 3rd Device 108 because in different passages, and we explained them in our brief,

[00:22:21] Speaker 01:
Third device 108 was often described as being interchangeably with first device 102.

[00:22:27] Speaker 01:
And so there's no real reason to repeat the description with respect to first device 102 for third device 108 in that passage.

[00:22:33] Speaker 01:
But neither way, we don't think that the silence in these paragraphs 180 to 195 should outweigh the explicit teachings in paragraphs 116 and 134.

[00:22:45] Speaker 01:
I also wanted to

[00:22:47] Speaker 01:
touch on the argument that the board misread or misunderstood the claims.

[00:22:53] Speaker 01:
So we disagree with Opposing Council that the board necessarily misunderstood the claims.

[00:22:59] Speaker 01:
We think that the dispute that was presented before the board was factual.

[00:23:05] Speaker 01:
It had nothing to do with the scope of the claims.

[00:23:07] Speaker 01:
It was two factual disputes with respect to Gardner and Hugh.

[00:23:10] Speaker 01:
The board expressly resolved both those factual disputes and based this decision on its resolution of those disputes.

[00:23:16] Speaker 01:
I think critically, the board found that the examiner's findings, and I'm on appendix five here, the examiner's findings with respect to Hue teaching the placement overlay module 722 on device 108 are supported by assigning teachings of Hue.

[00:23:31] Speaker 01:
The board did not expressly consider whether the prior teaches or suggests installing overlay module 722 on Gardner's device 102, which is what the examiner had mapped to the media streaming device, which is what the board would have done had they understood the claims as the panel says they did.

[00:23:46] Speaker 01:
Nor did the board expressly consider whether Hugh teaches or suggests installing Overlay Module 722 on a device that streams content to Public Device 204 or Third Device 108, which again, that's what the board would have done had the board understood the claims as felon says they did.

[00:24:01] Speaker 00:
Can I just double check something?

[00:24:03] Speaker 00:
Do you agree that the two IE parentheticals in the last full sentence at the bottom of Appendix 5 are wrong?

[00:24:12] Speaker 01:
No, Your Honor, I wouldn't say the first one is.

[00:24:16] Speaker 01:
Because the overlay module 722 is teaching a second app.

[00:24:20] Speaker 00:
Oh, that's the second app.

[00:24:21] Speaker 00:
OK, not the third.

[00:24:22] Speaker 00:
OK, but the 108 is the public device and not the third device, not the media streaming device.

[00:24:30] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:24:30] Speaker 01:
Yeah, it's the display device, not the media streaming device.

[00:24:37] Speaker 01:
And unless the court is for the question on that point, I want to quickly respond to the point about motivation to combine.

[00:24:43] Speaker 01:
Appellant had numerous opportunities to challenge motivation combined before the examiner.

[00:24:48] Speaker 01:
And not having done so, we think that the appellant forfeited that argument before the board and failed to preserve it for review here.

[00:24:56] Speaker 01:
And to the extent that the board nonetheless considers that argument, we think that under Rule 4150A1, the board's decision should be understood as incorporating the examiner's motivation combined.

[00:25:08] Speaker 01:
Unless the court has any further questions.

[00:25:19] Speaker 03:
We'll be back in three minutes.

[00:25:21] Speaker 02:
I just want to briefly touch on who disclosing who's third control device.

[00:25:34] Speaker 02:
I think it's very clear from who at 1284 at paragraphs 188, 191, and 185 that only the first device and the second device

[00:25:47] Speaker 02:
have the content delivery system installed on them.

[00:25:51] Speaker 02:
And I also think because, and then I wanted to touch on the board's decision.

[00:26:01] Speaker 02:
And I mean, I'm happy that the directors now agrees that the decision is incorrect.

[00:26:08] Speaker 02:
But this court reviews the board's decision, and the board's decision

[00:26:15] Speaker 02:
does not support that the claims are invalid.

[00:26:18] Speaker 02:
It's not supported by substantial evidence with all of the mistakes included in it.

[00:26:25] Speaker 02:
And I think that's a separate and unique ground for it to be overturned.

[00:26:32] Speaker 02:
Regarding the motivation to combine, the force decision doesn't include any motivation to combine whatsoever.

[00:26:40] Speaker 02:
And we're talking about a combination between Gardner

[00:26:44] Speaker 02:
And who and that's it Appendix one through six You can see at the end.

[00:26:51] Speaker 02:
There's no discussion about it that the board only talks about the teachers suggested or suggested This issue was raised before the board In appendix 941 appendix 1001 thousand six appendix 1007 appendix 1008 where the where UEI said that the board had not the examiner had not shown a motivation to combine and

[00:27:14] Speaker 02:
who and Gardner and we would our position is that because the board's decision doesn't have Articulated motivation combined.

[00:27:24] Speaker 02:
It's not supported by substantial evidence for that reason also Thank you