the court in finding claims five anticipated by the hundred reference the board erred should be reversed for at least two reasons first claim twenty four of leonard cannot be long lasting lee pics to the hume oral head as claimed by requires because the surface is too smooth smooth bearing surface unnecessarily comprises properties contrary to long lasting fixation and the p t o is attempts to fix that plane to the humoral had result in a modification of leonard is supposed to necessarily comprise smooth and low friction attributes in order for your arm to be moving in a constant action you wouldn't want to have for example a rough surface but a rough surface is the type of thing that you would want if you were looking for a long term fixation especially for implantation in a person over over long periods of time you know then you have to shoulder the b polyethylene material for that plane and we think it's clear based on the disclosure and leonard that because that's a bearing surface it's continually bearing the movement of the humoral head that it necessarily has to be smooth and that trying to modify it to rough it up or do something in that fashion would be a modification prohibited and further we just wouldn't have one skilled in the art that's going to take a surface to design for ongoing movement and smooth articulation and try to convert it to one that's used for fixation especially in the case where no long lasting fixation of the implant and it can't achieve that long lasting fixation so the capable is just not capable of doing that given the nature of the smooth bearing surface that you friction surface in order for a long term movement of your arm that every you know it's going to have the friction there so and particularly you know a surgeon or such is going to be taking parts from one type of employment and moving them over and using them on the other side and so and they certainly wouldn't be taking surfaces that are designed for ongoing articulation and use those for fixation they just they just necessarily have properties that are contrary to that long term fixation again especially in the case and as is claimed in the nose down configuration you know you need something more than a very smooth surface to to achieve that long term fixation and that's why that clayton is not capable and we don't believe either side of that plane is capable of long term sort of fixation because the opposite side is is a movable surface that moves in relation to the base of that next i'd like to discuss that the p t o is incorrect in its attempts to distinguish top left topless is not directed to a situation where there was a significant modification instead there was only as the court characterized as a slight modification was proposed with prior art and the court said that evidently approached very near the invention there but still the court in top lip refused to find an anticipation and so we think here again we have more than a slight modification the p t o proposed screws at one point and glue is not going to hold on a surface such as that or cement without some modification at least and even then it's highly questionable and we don't think one skilled in the art would take again that bearing surface and try to fix it to the other side try to use it as a long term fixation surf proposes to change the structure by using screws or by attempting again to use some of which again wouldn't work but again those are attempted modifications that are different from shriver shriver also notes that the spou inherent disclosure but here i don't think there's any inherent disclosure because of the properties that are necessary in that surface that has articulation against that ongoing for long periods of time from the main body therefore we think that the force findings are not supported by substantial evidence and the placement of leonard cannot be a long lasting way fixed to the hume or head for the reasons that we discussed earlier we think they're just  lasting for a long lasting fixation on the humoral head because it is shaped in a way that it can be made it onto the humoral head and the things that he has mentioned about why it cannot be  i'm not in the claims and there's no showing just because something is smooth that it would be prevented from being fixed on to the humoral head you know it could still be cemented on to the head there are two decks argument or your friends are the minute winner shows the grain or an implant which is going to go into that portion and so that kind of means that there are some other pieces that has to be used attached to the humerus to work with when or where there seems like the exact opposite that there's attaches to the humorous and doesn't actually tell you how it's going to be attached as it quickly i don't know it seems that that surface there would just never be attached to be humorous it's going to be attached to some other unspecified piece that attaches to the verse does that make any sense or not but i think it very unclear our position is that you know it's basically building blocks i mean you both at both pieces are between the annoyed and the humans and their piece of land hard clean twenty four heard that wouldn't meet the language configured for a long lasting fixation there's nothing about this piece in line or which is shown as being needed to be humor ahead that would prevent it from being a fix to the human and where the figure for d leonard the item twenty four there is the same item twenty for a figure three a day and three p it's still a figure it's still an item that attaches to the all that figure four d is kind of an abstracted view of one type of deployment of the plate and twenty four tach again to the glen oid the view of the feet and however it's shown in figure four three a and three b so there's respectfully are you saying that there is something between twenty four and twelve now i'm saying that twenty four is fixed to twenty and twelve moves relevant to it it's it's resected it's a little unclear technically why you would do that is to reset the head and then leave it resected while it moves but it's a proposed method of doing it i suppose the bottom line is that playing twenty four is always fixed physical i know it's never fixed in leonard under down and so i'm asking you isn't there movement between twenty four and twenty so i'm trying to understand what you mean by things yes there are there is movement between twenty four and twenty because  immovable i mean if you look at bigger two and then why couldn't the same be true about twenty four in twelve because twelve is the you moral head there's no discussion or description of basically twelve moves  relative to twenty four that's the humoral had twelve is a bone and it's resected there and it moves relative to twenty four twenty four has a little bit of movement as shown in figure one at appendix three zero nine you can see the arrow twenty seven shows there's a little movement of twenty four up and down but it's it's fixed in there by the the side attachments and then the humoral head is then moving relative to that plate so these figures for a three four ear are just abstracted variations of what is shown in detail in figure one so the plate in twenty four now is never in leonard disclosed to be attached cemented or in any way connected to the mill head except how however than anatomy would move that against in the rotation of the arm therefore again that's to our point that because that's a smooth bearing surface and and leonard describes it that way it says the head of the humerus generates at the surface twenty six and i'm reading at appendix four ninety five to four ninety six generates at the surface a shear stress as it tends to move the plate relative to the base that's because the humoral head is moving against that surface of the plate and which again is connected to the glen oid the base therefore again the  key feature here is if you can that surface that faces the that faces the humoral head is always configured for ongoing moving movement of the