The examiner rejects Claim 1 of your patent application on a 103(b) basis. Claim 1 has two 9 components: A and B that combine to perform function X. The examiner points to a component S similar to A in patent Q that performs function R in combination with other components. The examiner also points to component U similar to B that performs function X in combination with other components. The examiner argues in the rejection that it would be obvious to combine A and B to achieve X from the information that is available in the prior art. You point to information disclosed in the prior art and in your patent application which indicate that the combination of S and U would produce result P that is different than X. Is this argument potentially effective to reversing the rejection? If so, on what basis? Explain