and you can ignore certain elements not deconstructed like to tick but you can ignore those elements and look for to see whether that reference discloses the prior art and in x or gen i think  is is nearly i think it's pretty close to being dead on point here you had in x or jim you had a thermometer that the claimed thermometer had detecting peak radiation across multiple areas and the piece of prior art had detecting radiation over a certain areas and it had an additional detection system that combined with the initial the earlier radiation and that's how that one operated and the and this court said that you can ignore that the nd heat radiation sensing element because what you find disclosed is the claimed invention and that's exactly what we have here we have two heat sinks disclosed in chalo one of which covers all of the elements of the client maybe if you would look at page four of the reply brief you can see that in child you have page four shows figure to be of the challenge and it shows figure thirty of the ninety six dollars a patent and they're essentially in the claimed elements they're identical they have chow has the  and i think your honor asked earlier that the claims that are issue in this appeal are claims twelve and six periphery of the heats pressure that's the claim there is no multitude of heat sinks there is no arrangement of heat sinks in the claims there is not every heat sink in the claim there is no reference to any efficiency there is no reference to any  specific amount of energy that must be dissipated is a paid the claim is merely you have to find a heat sink and that seems heat sink has to be substantially ring shaped and has to be disposed around the amended or and one of the key aspects of the patent he added to the claims to make sure that it distinguished itself from the prior art are the height and depth limitations that we've talked about  ink and a bring this down the dimensions and that's why the dimensional limitations are not matt when you consider choose he'd seen fourteen as part of the overall he'd seen now again that's technical innovation and to say well we can get there by simply ignoring kids in fourteen and two and assuming that she was always designed like the invention of the patent begs the question well then what is it that the patentee achieved or invented or claimed especially when they amended around this reference and the answer is we can't do that in the context of chu as a matter of fact finding as a board found because then we would be looking at only part of the overall feat seeing structure of to know it when it does not have to be the case that everything that dissipates heat has to be considered as that heat sink i absolutely agree with that what it does need to be is that adequate heat sinking nabl the reference has to be considered as part of the heat s before the board now if your honour's finds that the basis for the board's decision is not adequately clear somehow from the decision that it doesn't perhaps make sense to your honor's why the board decided that both of those structures together have to be considered as the heat sink rather than only one of them then that that's as a basis for green and i asked the board to further explain its reasoning not an outright reversal on a core question of fact wrong during the prosecution when you amended the claim to overcome cho reference and there's a lot of discussion about heat sink element fourteen and show and why now if a claim clearly you know gets around that element to what extent was the examiner and the applicant talking about outer flange twenty two of cho and wrestling with the question of when oh is that a heat sink or should we be considering that as a separate heat sink or maybe we should not be considering that the separatists so i think your honor so that the short answer is it was not expressly and thoroughly discussed in that manner and i think the reason was that nobody on either from the examiner patentee side ever contemplated that you could look at show system which clearly i believe as the board has found has this combination heat sink of fourteen with the rest of the structure of outer  getting fourteen the way that i understand that as i look at that history and i think about the landscape here is that the focus was on fourteen because fourteen has always been the problem with two meaning that twenty two on its own fourteen choose to be a separate home i so i understand why you're saying that your honor that's not the way that i interpret the history the way i interpret the history is that what is certain is that you have to consider heat seeing fourteen as part of choose heats and whatever it is and once you do you have a problem because you can't meet these limitations whether that means that he'd seen fourteen is the only heat seen or a part of a heating system is not the thing that is expressively being addressed by those prosecution history comments and nothing about those comments is inconsistent with the fact that the overall heat sink of two is fourteen and twenty two together it's just that fourteen is the problem for purposes of meeting the limitation the fact that both of them are separately and numerate it to me and apparently to the board doesn't end the inquiry of what the heat sink if each of the radio fins were separately in numerated we wouldn't say that right at the end of the day the question is what does the adequate heat sinking to enable this reference to be a heat sink if there were eight fully redundant  chew said i doubt i've got twenty two that does everything i need but sometimes twenty two can get damaged or fail or get rusted and i need to have a backup and that's what fourteen is then we would not be having this discussion and with the way i can assure you of that is that in the companion i p r that paid for for patton i p r the board said that shoes out of flange twenty two dollars alone can be enough for purposes of obviousness and the reason it said that is because there was a theory of of a modification to chew wear and the petitioner sakho said let's take out some of the these and shoot and let's reduce the operating temperature down and let's also modify the outer flange twenty two dollars so that it's robust enough to deal with adequate heat sinking and the board said ok well if you're going to do those modifications and argue obviousness then i can credit you that outer flange twenty two would be an adequate sink but when you come to me with an anticipation argument both in this i p r and in the one that we just argued a moment ago for anticipation purposes that's not enough and so the board has a clear and reconcil d and consistently applied viewpoint on what is an adequate heat sink or not for purposes of the prior art and these claims and it does depend on this issue of enablement and one of two versus one of the three and i think again if if this court feels that there's a lack of clarity in that regard then at best that factual determination should be handed back to the board to further explain its reasoning i certainly don't think that there's a basis for any outright reve l anything more i'd like to address any questions that i can i understand your honour's reluctance to see the board's reasoning here i fight fully appreciate it i do think it makes sense and i'd like to address any questions