one regarding construction and one regarding the board's misunderstanding of our obviousness i'm nation might start with a claim construction issue and in particular the parties dispute about whether the board's construction required is part of it a sole causation or alone causation requirement despite not using the word soul or that's part of my problem so where in that four decision do you think it actually requires that i never use the controller to release from the clip in accordance with claim one so here the board saying it's the radio movements that most cause the controller to please not that it's a cause in connection with  other steps will lead to but know that it must cause the controller to release that's a sole causation requirement despite not using the words well i mean that was in response to your argument relating to the timing of the release and their weapon boards that is that it's not a help the timing it's about what does it that's correct your honor and here very clearly the board is saying that the radio outward movement in the link arms must cause a controller to be released and that is tantamount to a sole causation if there were any doubt remaining as to spell about looking at how the board applied its construction and still keep in mind the context of the call me a reference it's a three step process for releasing the controller from the clip step one which is the step that we focus on your honor's as you pull back and control where the link arms really expand dr nic testified that that's an absolute necessity to release the control work from the clip why because only then is the clip locked within the holder twenty one which means that only then can you push the controller forward in the in step number two to separate the holder twenty one from the guide member sixteen and only then can you proceed to step three to move the end the scope sideways to complete the separation of control working the clip so that step one is critical is an absolute necessity and so when you look at the board did you know playing as construction it skips over that one right to step number three and focus on moving the end a skull sideways because that is the action according the board that actually releases the control or from the clip in this is made even more clear when looking at how the board applied cooke's construction so board criticize cooks construction and said that virtue in this is that appendix eighteen the board said virtually any step would be covered by cooks construction no matter harf how far removed it and so surely step one in the process just two steps removed from the final step of moving the end of school sideways would be covered by cook's construction but no again the board in applying its construction again jumped rights to that step number three well and the whole point was the board said that your construction would would cover such a huge panel play of things and that can figure two which is very specific language has to be required it requires a structure designed to perform the function not just you know a structure that's capable of performing and so why isn't that correct and why do we need to even go beyond the extr controller from the clip that's exactly how operates when it's with link arms ready to expand it's only in that configuration that the control wire so now you're saying that that you're not complaining about th raising just has to be configured to cause a release required as part of its construction is made clear by how it applied to construction that then radially expansion radio expansion a link arms must real expansion link arms alone causes the controller to be released that's the bone of contention it requires a released configuration which doesn't itself require release of the control where at all it's a it's a configuration the link that's claimed not the configuration of the control where relative to the clip but it has to be a structure and a structure that that is configured to cause the release so then because when the rate the radio expansion a link arms is an absolute necessity to release the control wire from the clip it doesn't do it by itself but it in combination with the  subsequent steps is what causes the control wear to be released from the clip in that release configuration and claim one the link only needs to be configured to release a clip doesn't actually have to  release clip now looking at cook's allows or leads to construction it's intended to reflect that the rail expansion a link arms is in this is a necessity to release the controller from the clip and there's a direct relationship between the two but there's no requirement in the claim that it be sufficient by itself to release the controller from the clip and play in that construction comeon needs the link i'm going to return to the  nd issue which is the board's misunderstanding of our obviousness combination cook explained in the petition that in the combination and this would be an alternative that's currently the expand in simultaneous with that the control wires release from the clip as a result compared to call me a there's no need to push the controller forward in sidewise in order to separate the control wire from the clip because it's already snagged on the clip as you're trying to move it sideways away from the clip the board mistakenly took this motivation to come by and to mean that the control wires not pushed forward for any reason well wise to separate the controller from the clip that's something that's distinct from pushing the control wire forward in communist up to to separate the clip from the delivery device so in the combination just as in you still need to proceed to step two because you still need to separate the clip from the device and cooks discussion of the petition was in the context of claim one and there's no requirement in claim one that the clip be separated from the livery device so not surprisingly we didn't go into great detail in that regard but elsewhere in the petition we did in fact make clear your honour's that the control wire in the combination is still pushed forward to release the clip but it's a really what the board said is they just didn't think you gave them enough evidence to explain your theory and at that point i mean just that that you may have failed to provide sufficient evidence of the board is not a grounds for for us to reverse the board specifically said you you may have had some good ideas about this or your expert may have said good ideas but you failed to explain why isn't that enough or did say that in the reason why that's not enough is because it is all based on the board's misunderstanding of our obviousness combination as eliminating the step of pushing the controller for the board characterize that as an essential step and then criticize cook for not explaining in the petition how or why that report of the essential step would be eliminated well of course there's no explanation because the steps not  public that supposed misunderstanding the impact though the separate finding that you failed to show how proper jobs would interact with me as well it's all one in the same your honor because it all relates to the combination of how  jobs would be combined with comi is clip and we talked about the misunderstanding of the controller being pushed forward the board statement you referring to your honor's talks about how jaws in the clip as reflected in in co card how the cards connect to cars clip but again this is misunderstanding because cook never perceive never proposed to combine link similar to how a comedian's hook member wraps around the end of me as clip and so it all is reflecting the board's fundamental misunderstanding of cook's obviousness combination which it didn't understand it at the outset and when you look at the minor decision the board considered cook's reply evidence which did make clear that the controllers push for disregarded it and each turn because of what it understood or should say misunderstood to be saying in the petition less or any other questions or  implication of that in other words to maybe this will help to explain when you when you poll and call me of the clip back into the hole sixteen those intersecting portions  eleven i'm sorry offset portions eleven be what they do is they move and what that does they move radially what that does is that causes the jaws of that the clip in commit to close doesn't have anything to do with release the clip is still firmly seated on the hook and komi is hooked at that point and in answering him to answer your question that's the case both before the clip is pulled back into a whole sixty day and even if it wasn't pulled back and simply moved out and deploy and that's not the way that the operations of the theory is that the st the way this is designed the president has to be but pulling it back and causing the clip to close in a hole sixteen has no functional relationship to release at all it's that clip both before it's pulled into the hole and after it's pulled into the hole is firmly seated on that control where it's not in it released configuration because the clip is still attached to the controller let me turn to unless there are further questions on that i would turn leave the obviousness argument and the motivation argument the board's conclusion that combining crocker pro car its jaws with the commute device wouldn't be something that a person of every school would do is supported by substantial evidence starting with was there a misunderstanding quicker or i don't think there was any misunderstanding so much as the petition doesn't clearly set forth exactly what cook said was d the combination would look like cook never said for example in the  crocker's jaws interacted with comi as cliff they didn't say it that came around that came about later the out of the theory later in the proceeding at but cook did say in the petition that making this modification with eliminate the step of pushing forward that's not the only thing they said but it is one of the things they said and it is true in our expert dr vita coonass explained it doesn't that the modification wouldn't eliminate the step of moving forward and beyond that but their argument is they didn't really mean it went completely eliminated it would be it just moves forward in a different way but they said two different things and so in the petition and so that that created some confusion and it was unclear what exactly their theory was they said eliminates the step of moving forward and they said it eliminates the step of moving forward and and jiggling or moving the device sideways to cause the clip to be released so they said both of those things without explaining what it was that was the simplification in any of that what our expert board agreed is there would be there would be no simplification you'd still have to move the the stuff to move the control wire forward to cause the clip to come off of the device and there would be a number of or or in the same plane as the flip and they squeeze the end of the clip that's very different from what we see going on in camille which is a clip device and the board said there's no explanation for how this all would work together later on reply we the explanation changed or the theory changed to be that pro car jaws would would interlock but there is substantial evidence b skill wouldn't do that there is that that design the interlocking design that's proposed for the reply as proposed for the modification would result in much more give between the clear clear would it have to be from the record that think i think you'd have to be very satisfied particularly in view of the fact that that's the idea that the idea that pushing the control wire forward was the step that's being eliminated is not the only thing that the board said about why this combination would work i almost think that's a that's an aside or relevant at the at what age of the company and we're talking about ok let's see if i can find it i believe it is let's see i believe it starts on appendix ph thirty two and continues then at the bottom of thirty six says importantly even assuming and talks about how petitioner failed to show that camille would have operated as intended so the theory continue and that continues on thirty seven dollars and continues on to thirty eight the theory that the board was considering was was routine substitution and then go on to consider your reply or argument how does that make it that they don't understand what you were saying a few things your honor number one that statement right there makes very clear they don't understand what we are saying because did is they only looked at that reply argument through the lens of its misunderstanding of how it misunderstood the combination so at each instance when you look at the board's citation or reference to the reply argument the board proceeds to disregard that evidence not on its own merits but instead based on what is in the petition so for you just you know you're not sure that i read that sentence the board makes a statement and then talks about particularly in light of the insufficient explanation provided by the petitioner in the petition and then that same page this is a great this is your own i was referring to the board statement of dr nicosia man it may have had ideas about how to combine the teachings in that same sentence the board says and the petition is practically devoid of any analysis again so it's announcing the reply evidence but then disregarding it for but they also said the poll said they read it the patent holders expert don't they have the right to do that they certainly have the right to do that but not if it's a fundamental understanding my problem is i don't see that that discussion is just what it is to is premised on anything to do with limiting th of of pushing the control where for so if you accept that and you understand that everything kind of it is is is viewed through that lens that the board thought we were eliminating what it called an essential step and then considered that the reply evidence but only through that lens of thinking that we were limiting that step and so that's why the board keeps coming back and rejecting the reply evidence based on what was in the petition my time is up unless