like when when the parties just target one kind of being representative of all then what that stands for and that you waive any opportunity to limitations of fifteen then we believe they've waived to the right to have the remained back on fifty and that it should be found to be unfounded assuming that you're right about the limitation that's included in claim one there is a figure five that shown there that is a cross section of figure eight when it is put together  extent did you rely on substrate three of six in your i p r petition as a basis for showing that all these different devices are in thermal communication with each other we had testimony from d i did he discuss the substrate three o six he did not specifically describe discuss the substrate three or six in the in the paragraph that we cited from however and eighty seven doesn't have all of the reference numbers in it but what what we show busy on on page six of our reply brief is some of the reference numbers included and we show where  located and where the substrate is located and what it demonstrates is that when this is put together the substrate overlaps the portion of the  substrate and the early days are contacting the couple or three  and so looking at looking at figure five if you've got you've got heat coming from the l e d s you've got them going into the substrate you have a substrate connected to the at appendix three  ten which is in our which is actually in the decision the the twenty is configured to act as a secondary heat sink for conducting heat away from the l a p d so we did have a reference in in our arguments to the board that three hundred and twenty was in fact heating and combined there were other issues that were more relevant and didn't expect that i want to be taken up that medi i don't think so your honor so this is a wise that so the claim that we're talking about right now for purposes of the appeal and the board's decision is claimed while although d the claim that's left in dispute this claim fifteen well it was the same thing  t and so i'd like to build from there which is that there were a lot of attacks on claim one based on a lot of different prior art references but the only test is that my main claim one has been held invalid right  had properly raised the issue but the fact is that the only basis for the board's finding that claim fifty was not patentable was the depended from claim thirteen and won which at that time had not been held invalid crime so your honor i think what you're saying is that you potentially read maps when you're to mean that if a petition or challenge is the independent claim based on two different grounds and only challenges a certain deep and the claim based on one ground and the independent claim is only successful as to the reference that does not reach the de patentable that holding with respect to the independent claim carries over to the deep end of claim and the only remaining issues or with respect to the unique elements of the deep end class well your  honor and be that as it may i don't believe that that holding extends to the situation where the petitions only challenge to the dependent claim is based on a reference that was found by the board to never meet a limitation of the independent quite i don't understand what you're saying and so let me let me clarify in the following manner choose for example has been found to meet claiming one of the eight for for pat and to invalidate that client but she was never you're not addressing what i did not it did not find that the limitations of claim fifteen itself the pendent claim limitations who rendered it not compatible that didn't discuss them at all right so your honor claim fifteen includes all the limitations of claim on and the limitations of claim fifteen that are part of claim one of my statement is correct as adopted as other limitation and claim fifteen was never discussed by the  fifteen builds on an earlier d limitation of claim why exactly and look let's only do says if that claim independent claim is held invalid that carries over as a matter of collateral estoppel in to the in the other i p r not to invalidate a dependent claim based on a different reference in theory that we could never reach a limitation of the independent claim to begin with that your my case is to support what you're saying what are you thinking about are you thinking about them case like the petitioner's burning to present issues what is it that you're relying on for yes your honor so they have to put forth a theory that supports the invalidity that they want to achieve their in which claim one was found invalid the other i p r and claim one is found invalid that's on appeal to claim one is now invalid did that on their i p r challenge claim fifteen no but your honor also in this i p r i believe claim one was found invalid based on other references if you read my next line i have briefly looked at it your honor and i and i don't believe that it extends to the  that perhaps you may have in mind it i'd like to i'd like to talk about well let me make two comments on this one is clearly the or and the party did not have any because it happened after the board decision what did happen after the lives of the invalidity the compatibility of twenty one dollars was established i don't believe so your honor i believe it was decided in decision itself i thought about this i'm talking about this i p r and i'm talking about the fact that in this i p r i believe and let me just confirm for you yes claim one was found invalid based on other references in this i p r but claim fifteen was not because there were no references that were directed to claim fifteen other than take care and take care to not meet the limitations of claim fifteen that are part of claim one by the way the fact that shoe invalidates claim one doesn't get them to claim fifteen because they don't have a claim to fifteen theory on two right so taking her is the one that applies to crane fifteen and if we if we could focus for a minute on the limitation of claim fifteen could i do that with you the limitation of claim fifteen is a more stringent version of the same limitation of claim one that the board primarily found lacking in ticker and that is the requirement in claim one that the heat spreader facilitates transfer of heat from the elysees to the heat sink now in their theory they rely on figure eight and they call the writer of the structure three hundred and thirty dollars which is actually an optical it's called the optical coupler the optical coupler is on the outside on the top of what they call the heat sink structure three hundred and twenty three these are on the other side there on the bottom side and so what the board said is you can't meet the requirement of precisely because it says that heat has to go directly from the levy's to the heats a better so the relationship has to be even closer between the o e s and the heat spreader and claim fifteen than in claim want so this same limitation that was the distinction over aken or that the board relied on directly applies to claim fifteen and they don't have any other theory to me claim fifteen should the board have said more about clean fifteen itself the answer to that is nobody debated taking or after the board's institution position the institution decision denied the take no ground it was initially out of the no reason to pile on with the board at that point because it already found against ignore or nobody said anything about taking anymore no one said it and the p o are in the reply worth the oral argument and so i think that if there is going to be some kind of a stop of consideration as claim fifteen based on the lack of separate argument about claim fifteen this would certainly be the wrong case for it due to the intervening event of sas institute and the institution decision at a minimum again if that is where the record is inclined to go i would ask that you allow the proceeding to go that and for the development to be made on claim fifteen so that the board d and separately reach two thousand and fifteen and i think the board's decision as to claim one as i just explained would lead to the consequence that it will find that claim fifteen is not met by one in respect to the issue we just discussed the issue is really the patent owner never argued patentability of claim fifteen on the separate limitation of claim it relied only on the patent believe claim one and therefore