review the underlying issues of fact are subject to substantial evidence however in this case there are no facts that are in dispute in this decision on appeal the board conducted with our having a calculated stiffness value within the claimed range and not factual finding was not appealed because the board made this factual determination in its inherent analysis it reversed the  reverse of the c r u examiners anticipation rejection and that issue was not appealed and is not before the court here today so the remaining question is the board's obviousness analysis and the obviousness analysis of the board is subject to th twenty five microns didn't explicitly talk about average thickness and so therefore is elected not to adopt the want to reject but nevertheless that that would be obvious to take the teachings of africa hoary and come up with a poly mind still with an average thickness of twenty microns and that seems to be a reasonable conclusion to derive from a car's expressed teaching so the usage of inherently didn't really come up in the one of two contexts it only came up in the one of three contexts the board never three and what happened was the board did this is analysis of aka hoary is inherently analysis of aka hoary in the context of anticipation because the missing element is the stiffness of the film and so what the board whether or not it needed to go further and decide for itself whether there would be inherent of the stiffness claiming yes so the average thickness is not the missing element from the coin the missing element from the the knesset twenty micron now let's go see and find out if that twenty micron average thickness would result in its defense value for sighted in your claims correct and that's exactly where the court ran afoul of the part pharmaceutical case you buy this court recently in last december because what part pharmaceutical says is that for the good or to employ elements from the prior art in an inherently analysis in the context overall context of obviousness those two elements must be explicitly combined teachings to come up with a product that is reciting the claims and then if that particular obvious product happens to have an unknown but inherent property then that recitation of that  stiffness values then that seems to be a classic inappropriate use of the inherently doctrine in the one of three contexts well the centaurs line case is different so centaurus i took our side speaking and that line of the pharmaceutical composition is obvious and then the only remaining steps in the claim are to administer to a person and then claim the resulting concentration in the blood or whatever it might be that is inherent in this obvious combination and in those cases each each one of the obvious come nations were explicitly disclosed and then what was missing was the result of the natural result part and in this case we don't have the same situation because even if the composition part is obvious in our claim the resulting stiffness value is not the natural result of the combination or the natural result of the composition because if you could take a composition and you could turn it into a p i film and it could have a vastly different stiffness value than what we've claimed and that's that's in evidence here before this quarter before the board because you know lots of the references that are cited when plugged in to we we take that the variables cited for the p i phones in those references and plug them into the stiffness equation they turn out to have a stiffness value that's not within the claimed range and so therefore we can't say that the natural result of a become of the what other way we could analyze that cory other than doing it that way well ok so it took two answers to the question i mean first of all even if you use that single k value that that was a result of the regression analysis you still end up with stiffness values under aka hoary for examples four and seven that fall outside of the claimed range so it's not necessarily present the stiffness value when you look at examples four and seven and then you  end up in your claimed stiffness range but others are and then those others in fact are then then what that amounts to is this patent trying to hit back  are different because we're talking about that what's the natural result of of the claimed element and that this is the thickness value is not a claimed element and so here we have the board saying that you know thickness which is not explicitly disclosed and they're saying that and objection to their exclusive use of that one k value because that is just one mere possibility for the table yet there are other alternative possibilities for the k value and in order to conduct a carefully circumscribed analysis of inherent see in this broader context of obviousness the board should have used the locate value in the high k value in the low stiffness are the low thickness value in the high thickness value in order to determine whether or not the resulting calculated stiffness value is necessarily present appropriate measurement but what the board said in the context of inherently was that aka hoary does not inherently disclose a film that has a calculated stiffness value within the claimed range and that was disclosed elements it used suggested elements or assumed elements we want to use the language of in records and so what the board is doing that is using assumed values and plugging them into equation two an equation to assert that the prior art variable tremor that was set forth in the pattern that was what the board said was not explicitly disclose they made specific reference to measuring the thickness at ten regular intervals along the horizontal plane of the film and they said in their decision and page nineteen that that thickness as measured the average thickness as measured by the patent wasn't present and i believe that specific reason is why the would be obvious in view of the particular disclosure of the thickness range of fifteen to twenty five so i think it's important to emphasize the specific findings of the borgia because they were looking at a lot of substantial evidence and they made some very very specific findings using that specific finding of twenty microns they then focused on example seven of our hoary and using the calculation for cygnus using that average thickness of twenty microns using the k value that was a result of the specific regression analysis they were able to n published or made available use your own information in order to recalculate and show that with you've done would have been on it's being used as a definition it's vague because there is very little guidance on how to measure especially you can either use the machine to particular loop testing machine or you can use this equation and the only guidance other than the particular equation except for some the several for patents are the result that relationship was no and using that no relationship and using the busy values in the example that was the only way you can determine what the cave value was without that there is absolutely no and it's a necessary result of the equipment that's being tested at the testing protocol and that set forth by dr thomas and his declaration and using that testing protocols  w but we but again we're missing we're missing information and the point is based on substantial evidence alone if you take that average status of twenty microns again we're focusing very very specific twenty micro in example seven and you plug that into the formula that is the definition on how to determine the stiffness you necessarily and inevitably result in value within the scope of the claim when you use the came value determined based again on the only guidance present in the sample for pat a very specific holding to focus on twenty we're not talking about a big broad range of numbers we're talking about a specific one number to twenty micron average that this is obvious period and then using that determination the calculation is made to show that this fifth is necessarily and inevitably results and again based on based on that that it was a very we've pointed in in the rafters to evidence that shows that the relationship between the stiffness and the sickness of the modulus were known the equation that the pattern is not a new the only number we use in the equation that was not in the prior art is the cable and the only way we can know what meaning of what that completely reasonable to rely on the other members of congress disclose which was the equation to determine the stiffness and in order to use that equation you have to have a definition for what k is what this came in what guidance is provided and the only guidance that is provided for what came means is in the examples and use of those examples the twelve examples either by itself or with the two comparative examples to do the regression analysis to come up with the line that testimony of dr thomas is that the caveat in fact that it's going to be necessarily present all those locations are dependent on the protocol in the machines that are being used in what the k value means is to look at the examples to provide what to find out what guidance what definition it's certainly not like i've got just number get that steps a one number and only one number again here because the take a value is a constant that has a dependency on the particular protocol it is only a appendix was in the requests for reexamination which demonstrate that you know in the seven zero four pattern there was one protocol used to evaluate the stiffness of the films and that was the loop stiffness tester and using that one protocol the films are evaluated for stiffness and the result when it comes down to the quay value is that there are multiple different k values calculated by the requester and set forth in the pics one so there's clearly no one constant came out even when you used the same testing protocol for all of the films which is what was done in the seven zero four pattern so that's the first point i wanted to mention and then the second point i also just want to mention that  pharmaceutical in ensuring the geneva of all these cases say that that inherently must be based on elements that are explicitly disclosed and so if we look at the different ranges of sickness those are just mere possibilities and that's in rate olrik which tells us that we can establish an apparency based on one mere possibility and so that we have to stay firmly grounded in the context in and it's not just an obviousness inquiry this is inherent see in the context of obviousness and that's why part pharmaceutical is the controlling case law because pars is talking directly about the use of inherent seeds in the context of an obvious analysis of the ultimate holdings in  understanding of the law that when there is a claim convention that obviously in view of the prior art if there is the claim also resign their property and that would is that line of cases and what you're referring to is is whether or not it's the natural result of the of the of the pharmaceutical composition or of the other claims element and in this case the stiffness value range that's claimed is not the natural result of the other claimed element that we have to remember that thickness is not a claimed element and so when you take the composition and you turn it into a p i film it could have been a variety of different thicknesses and so the natural result