company seventeen dash twenty five  their procedure on yes might flake again for united technologies the board you're committed to where's the first heat gain the final written decision standing alone there's a lack of substantial evidence to support the board's finding the claims fifteen and sixteen were anticipated based on inheritance and that's the first their if we move beyond seems to me there's a distinct possibility that well the board indisputable refered at several places to the inherent c standard but that was just a labeling problem not a substantive problem and that what it really decided was on the basis of what we've done in graves and r e g so that it can whatever it was go which is to say a person of skill in the art taking the input number you've got the output post tech number everybody in the business knows what techs do they make really only a small change and therefore when you start with a ratio of what is it fourteen point five that's not going to drop anything like the number five and so this is not an inherent see case it is a case about teaching to a person of skill in the art who brings to bear the knowledge of such a person which includes what you know about what techs do so that is inherently business even the board should never have used that language but substantively it doesn't matter then we need to look at the that's the proper place secondly the board then sat in found the board accepted that right when does and does not disclose a pressure at the outlet of the l p t and so and that's when you look at one distributor for you here's the critical degree to which that's not true which is what i just said everybody would know every bit relevant would know the ordinary skilled artisan would know that text change these these pressures only just a very well if we've gone them beyond you've got to measure the pressure at the outlet and you can look at when this and see there's no pressure at the outlet now now we're in the part where what happens in the taps and your honor mentioned disclosure and then the question becomes what does that mean i think serum we're in a very specific part of measuring you know p t pressure ratio and it's it's simple math as we see here you need true numbers when you don't have that second number that's a gap in the disclosure and we submit that the board fill that gap with inherent see your honour's asking about how that can that could still be an express disclosure but then what dr a boring jobs in kind of filling this in with respect to the tac and what the person of ordinary skill what i understand the only i've been in c really offers is his statement that she's not aware of such a turbo family which would have such a significant drop across the t c and that's not a statement that the person of ordinary skill is walking out and express god would differ from that it's a fair inference that an ordinary skilled person or so with understand that all the techs out there have this extremely small pressure of a turban actually case which has such a pressure drop that's the sole lebanon's that we have to make this leap that there's no contrary evidence there is no contrary evidence which actually gets to what we think is where the board exceeded its statutory authority as well as violated the a p a because we very specifically we start with the petition under magna morial here and they need to put with particularity the theory they're proceeding under in the petition and they decided they had three sentences actually on claims fifteen and sixteen two of which went to claim construction and then they based on that claim construction said b o p t pressure ratio importantly judge we didn't put forth an expert because we didn't need an expert based on our claim construction in the fact that one disk didn't disclose a pressure at the outlet or to go to appendix fourteen turbine exhaust case would be on the order of only a few percent then that's less than five and then under normal operating conditions then goes on to describe in the t c where there is what we understand the person ordinary skill would know what happens in a cheese see that it's going to be slightly less and at that point  he's making the case that you can infer what that pressure would be at the outlet i mean he's he's filling a gap at that point to say what the person or in skill what understand it's our position that that's supportive perhaps of an obviousness theory which she cited obviousness cases in their reply brief when they were talking about such evidence but that we didn't offer an expert at that point because we were basing this that there was no express disclosure in when did this and they offered in reply  this on that it doesn't matter what clean construction you use in the evidence we're talking about now from dr ari and so when we argued this in front of him or i reply at that point procedurally we can offer testimony to robot here now we did file a motion to strike and we were vigilant here and we moved to strike a certain portion of when us which they had not put in theory we think it's not enough for an express disclosure but to the extent the board then and its decision was was gap filling with within inherence the theory we never had any notice it would actually on according to g e they are saying based on your claim construction were simply responding through that now they have cried to put that in the petition they have every reason to believe in a case where we're going to construe l p t pressure ratio and the specification here at joint appendix fifty column for lines twenty four through twenty seven it's very specific you t i see i have a minute laughed we have a couple minutes but case should be remanded in fact we believe based on what the board did one they got the claim construction right and two if you apply that claim for instruction there is no express disclosure in when this at the outlet of the l p t if we apply that claim construction if we look at when this the case they actually brought in the petition and it's clear based on the the objective extrinsic evidence that you relied upon to show that with respect to a turbine exhaust case attack there is virtually no pressure drop across such a device that is s declaration to say more than it actually does that is i wasn't sure that it said every carbon exhaust parents and that i'd like i don't want to keep that separate that this is not a new problem of separating inherent c from anticipation with the addition of knowledge and it may be that each of those two things is itself confined and that we ought not to allow them to slop over into each other because there is always obviousness and if all of only you had pled that you'd be able to say undisputed evidence or at least on this record it would be undisputed the record might in fact have been different i don't know but but just focusing on inherent c really does inherent c cover the situation where all the particular market existing implementations of something have a certain property doesn't this doesn't inherently require that they have to have that property if a party like g e comes in with the evidence that establishes we are aware of no reference or no teaching that shows that a term an exhaust case does not have a minimal pressure drop evidence that he relied on to support his testimony u t c did not do that so with under a preponderance of the evidence standard which is what we had here the only evidence is that turman fourteen point four with attack it necessarily under the evidence is still well above five even excluding the attack because the only evidence is that tax have virtually no pressure what is your best one or two inherent see cases that allow this yesterday which i think is the in parents and standard to be met by pointing to what is what has been marketed in the real world well for example as opposed to you know a conversion scientific necessity that when these two chemicals that are mentioned are what science tells you will always happen right but just the fact that there are seventeen techs in the marketplace and everyone have this feat has this feature that's of a different order where have we ever said anything well i specifically there were and it's a good case because it shows two separate her girls are her removal it shows two sex credits the vices one in which there was not sufficient evidence of inherent see the second of which there was and they felt in the in the panel their focus specifically on this one it did show inherence he said it was necessarily known that a person would use the device in a vertical direction so that it met the particular claim limitation if it wasn't used in a vertical direction it might not happen the board said here all the evidence points to the only way you would use it is in the vertical direction that was enough for an errant they didn't you know the board to the panel did not look at every single hair removal removal device must be used in a vertical direction for they looked at the specific evidence that was in front of them and i and i believe that would be the exact situation here even excluding attack of of well above five but fundamentally we don't believe that this is an inherently case the board said specifically i agree they cited some inerrancy cases but when you look at what they said they said specifically that the record is persuasive that windus can be understood by want to ski only are performing basic technical analysis and simple math as having a pressure ratio of about five or greater so the board specifically said that when does has a pressure ratio of about five that's i don't believe inherent see that falls within the scope of express into submission into submission and that is precisely what this in the prior art in that case the claim required a way percentage above seventy five percent the prior art did not disclose weight percentages at all and there actually needed to be reference to extrinsic evidence to show these relative response factors that could then be used to do perform math to do some conversions to not arrive that an exact one to one correspondence with weight percentage but to arrive at with this court said was a reasonable to the fact that this was presented in the reply brief it would be in a possibility for a petitioner to have to anticipate and gas act every single claim construction issue that the patent owner may raise in its petition if we had to do that the petitions would be hundreds of pages long and that's just simply not a practical approach to this they it was raised only no it was not your honor it was only raised in their panel in response to the first time around and that was because these are dependent claims and the focus of the pattern or response was actually on the independent claim which they later disclaimed so there's not a lot of the problem of correct in the pride the patent to pull her spots and then in the institution decision institution decision just said gee each has shown that it's fourteen point four that's enough to get instituted on so they raised it in the patent on a response came out with this claim construction we disagree with but nonetheless came out with it we submitted evidence in our reply brief to show well even under that claim construction  response to says we're not interested in errancy we believe we're just not going to address but that isn't their choice to make it's up to the it's up to the board to decide what's in or in or out with respect to affirm there are two alternative grounds that this court can affirm on and i wanted to touch on one is the claim construction we don't believe that the courts claim construction is correct it's the specifications as specifically that you're supposed to manage that you is before the exhaust nozzle even u t c said in its owner response at appendix twenty two fourteen that the turbine exhaust cases prior to the exhaust nozzle so it was perfectly reasonable to construe the claims under a barrage of reasonable interpretation such that you can measure the outlook pressure either at the tac or before the attack and the board construction was unnecessarily narrow because it specifically expressly disclose a pressure ratio fourteen point the last point is that the second ground is that we did some met evidence in the reply that was moved that they moved to strike that expansion ratio is the same as pressure ratio in when disclosed as an expansion ratio of twelve point seven one which is excluding the tac the board did not rule on their motion to strike but we cited the exact page bahry that meets the inherent c standard he didn't say there's no engine out there i've looked at all the engines and there's no engine out there that would have such a pressure drop across the tax or if they decision the board render is based on inherent see there's not substantial evidence to support that because he simply said he wasn't aware of such an engine i want to t judge you asked g council specifically whether we had raised this claim construction issue at the outset and i'm at the joint appendix twenty one thirty six which is outlet of the low pressure turban so we didn't raise this in the p o p r we did join the issue at that point that this is a claim construction case and there is no pressure forward i want to go to the council talked about unrebutted evidence well we had our chance in the p l o are to submit our evidence and when we put in that footnote that they were they were perceiving under an inherently theory they cited obviousness cases and there were no questions whatsoever from the board that this was an inherent see case at oral argument we think if you look at the final written decision that what the board did is there was a gap in when disfigure four and they cited an inherent see cases because they were filling that gap i want to very briefly touch on the points the alternative grounds that cheese council waste much in claim construction we believe it's quite clear on the spac that it should be measured at the outlet and then he mentioned the expansion ratio which again is something they could have raised in the petition at joint appendix forty four twenty one we actually had a demonstrative where the specific twelve point seven two to relying on they cited that four times in the petition a dr a bar is that corporation and they specifically don't need it from that sentence in the opening papers the twelve point seven two expansion ratio so when they put that in the reply we