average is critical would have been critical to the rejection and the board addressed probably because of that of it is there to say there is a motivation to make that front end stage on regulating the  why there would be a motivation to combine these other two things and so if it didn't go beyond that why are we left with the board's decision to say request for examination that is what it says if you look at the bridge in paris and i'm talking about the arguments made to the board yes i don't get it started in the arguments made to the board i don't think we used the word even here because remember we means that easily transferable to square wave form systems and no i didn't see you really take that on in your grey brief you know you i think i think your main position is that synchron rectifiers were just generally well known they were generally known how to implement them and so it would just be straight forward to apply that in any kind of system whether to square w system or resin a system the other side has evidence or at least testimony to the contrary and the board made a finding based on that contrary testimony i'm just wondering why isn't that substantial saying that right now we're left with a record where there is knowledge that a synchronous rectifier and a diode can are interchangeable but we don't have something in the record that says and yes you rebuttal time will give you two minutes back and lot of it is really beside the point because you don't get to the combination with the combination you don't get to the clients with the combination that was hurt now to the board well the board considered the arguments to break just like it just so that i can get it please be clear about what's on my mind even if what's on my mind is confused put aside the absence of an argument which i is that as far as i can tell is can i ask you something about on page ten of your brief read brief and i apologize if i'm just confused but you have a sense that says one way is to quote place the isolation stage first in the power flow unquote crowd by several d c d c switching or really regulators and you cite column fourteen lines twenty to twenty three and maybe i'm just blind but i don't see that there again it connects with the fact that at least until maybe you get to the zero to one patent every single figure has the order these things reversed in our brief i think that the the little paragraph that begins the specification also providing selective portions of different embodiments well omitting the portions of each this is the argument about three point three being modified and it seems to me pressman is explicit about this it says you can do the three point three what we do to three point four i don't understand how that is how there's any doubt about that i think what the text the same book and multiple bores have reached the same conclusion that of single secondary winding with multiple put filtered stages can be used in three three four three four if true and so to me that reads like ok you don't have to worry about having multiple secondary windings one for each you know converting down a voltage output it does say that but when it shows a single secondary winding there off there is a pretty regulator that shows in front of it teaches the importance of a pretty regulator and that while you can eliminate the pretty regulator you that comes at a cost and result in the selection of the regulators becomes much more limited and not only that but i think it's a stage architecture is far superior to a two stage for all possible uses yes and it shows that it shows that at the time the perception was and the fusion was that you're going to get about seventy two percent efficiency where you have a single stage conversion system but you're only going to get about a fifty nine percent where did the board make these kinds of findings about the three point three not being subject remembering the board giving explanations for saying well yeah this language does appear in pressman but really nobody would have thought that it meant this for the following additional technical reasons though this seems more that the board just miss the claims here they don't just recycle controlled rectifiers they call for turning on and off these control rectifiers in synchronization with the voltage wave can you explain what's the mystery but it was really just it was rarely used because what works and once or fifty what we're going to bother you need a very carefully designed system for timing the tron and the turnoff of the rectifiers the scheme needs to work with a very specific way force that you're dealing with what might be routine in one circuit is hopelessly complex somewhere else context is critical and so the issue here because it's what i call it shows fiddle with it in appropriate ways it was take the idea of synchronous rectifiers well known by nine hundred ninety seven and a skilled artisan would know how to do it by then respectfully i think they're they're supposed combinations to take supports their fact finding and by the way it's also well reinforced by the above the secondary consideration evidence that shows that this is really just sure hindsight there using the claims as a way to try to motivation to have an unregulated bus goldfish and at the same time to remove the pretty regulator from preston so that is part of the proposed projection started by the examiner and i think the point on president did you raise it in vitrine the way that you wanted them to or at least to consider and why didn't you raise in your request for a hearing as you know you are the board has a  found to be unregulated this is the figure with such only an empty space in the lower left hand corner and everybody agrees there's there a necessary component circuit elements that are simply not shown there the dispute is what can one