include all the limitations of the claims and so we would not say this is a way to address the by just focusing on the additional limitation of claim three corporation the power density limitations and the remainder limitations that are that would be generic to any just about any geared turbofan engine fan compressor combustor compressor turbine speech and system and it seems like the point what is the ground and what are the elements we have to stay focused on what it was and that was the vance engine and in terms of power density these active use within the plane such as the number of  the ratio of fan blades to rotors the number of stages in each of the turbines of the turbine section they all relate and to impact the turban volume and so for that reason you can't look at power density in a to consider whether the engine of figure thirteen of nips wasn't able because that is the engine on which ve in the border lie to your your your you want to talk about something else and that's fine  why don't you go ahead to the heart of your argument so i mean so the st part of our business to make sure we're focused on the board in our view made an error respected trying to reduce the invention down to the point of novelty and  because of the advanced materials weren't available that's exactly right here on it was not available at the time of the seven hundred and fifty one patent those and the performance character the specific performance characteristics that be enabled we are not saying that it all obviousness pace's single reference or otherwise the entire reference needs to be enabled we're saying it's important to look at the portion of that reference that's being relied on for the precise there least one example i can think of a i think it's called the apple case where what was being relied upon in a given prior art reference wasn't actually self unable ing but it was some discussion that was a basis to provide a motivation to combine to do some other kind of modification to a different prior art reference but what was being relied on in that st reference itself was not self enabling i don't think portion always has to be something neighboring and i'm not sure that's correct because as you pointed out right before i cut you off it's the question is the priority as a whole has to able skilled artisan to make the claim convention and so you can take different pieces here and there it's not so it's not such a rigid requirement that whatever little piece you take from an individual  that prior art reference must self unable that particular portion on which you're borrowing from that reference is that a fair statement so say on i think we agree as that is a fair statement but that is why the ground at issue here is so important here g e ground in the board relies on these futuristic unavailable materials in order to do the analysis to say that the pair against the limitation is next and because they are relying on that portion that engine needs a figure thirteen it needs this unavailable materials that engine itself has to be enabled if there is a different case where they were with another priest the prior art that did in fact have a neighboring disclosure of all these materials able to be able to achieve the weight requirements the temperature operation and the overall pressure ratio if that secondary reference was unable to have a very different case than we have here the only thing they pointed to is that internet figure thirteen that is absolutely reliant upon these unavailable materials which is why we are not advancing a  think your honor may have please the court ryan ferguson for general electric the board's decision here should be affirmed with respect to the point judge laurie made the only claims that issue here are claims three  cents and the record shows that pratt never argued independently for the patentability of those claims at that appendix sixty four to sixty five they may no argument before the board as to those claims they've made no argument here before this court with respect to the issue of enablement and the nif preference the board carefully weigh the evidence and found that in it sufficiently enables the claims of the seven hundred and fifty one patent and that is the correct standard and the court of the board further found that the claims are obvious in the view of net those case comes down to whether a skilled artisan could make the claimed engine based on the information and if disclosure and what i saw the board doing was analyzing the question of whether there was sufficient information in its disclosure in order to act calculate a power density value that based on the parameters disclose n would meet the power density claim limitation and claim one i did not see the board ever confront the question of whether a skilled artist and based on whatever disclosures provide inept could actually make the claimed invention the claimed gear turbofan engine what would be your best quote and page of the board opinion that would show me that that i think was missing and i perhaps i overlooked it but where would you point me to in the board's opinion certainly your honor there's there's two and this is after our an eleven page analysis based on the evidence taken in totality the wants factors of course the conclusion that net is an enabling reference ok so that's the conclusion i'm looking for the analysis of what is it about and it's disclosure that convinced the board that a skilled artisan could make a claim to engine with the claimed power  sure so there's two there's two things on that your honor because the real concern i have is that mit is discussing a futuristic aspirational engine that did not exist and could not exist then because the so called advanced materials did not exist at that time and they still do not exist and so one could imagine that all that was being discussed and disclosed in math was something almost like a science fiction novel like wow wouldn't it be great if we had materials that were so light and resilient that we could make a much more efficient engine fuel efficient engine ok that would be great but those dreamlike materials don't exist so i'm concerned right now what is it about nits disclosure beyond those dreamlike advanced materials could convince a fact finder that a skilled artisan would be able to rely on those hypothetical materials to make a claim convention with the power density yes your honor there's a lot to unpack there but i would start with this the nipa engine the specific futuristic materials of what you're describing on which pra easily and readily achievable and i'll start with st of all all of the structural elements of claim one and claim three or well known standard components and craft did not contest that below the board found a page twenty seven dollars of the opinion u t c does not dispute that these claim elements are either known components of gas turbine engines or disclosed in that then the evidence the board went on with respect to the main as you as it was described point of novelty the main point is whether nasa would render obvious to a person of skill that a standard engine having all the components which crack did not dispute would have the power density within the claimed range and the board's analysis power density is simply unknown byproduct of your terrible fan engines the evidence was very clear that because you used a geared engine you would end up with a smaller turbine section because you did not meet as many stages in the turbine check the same amount of work the evidence on that was overwhelming and the board cited at appendix twenty two to twenty three appendix six thousand two hundred and sixty two pratt never contested that well that's fine that using a geared turbo fan engine as opposed to a non geared turbofan engine will well increase the overall engine efficiency on a conceptual qualitative level fine but now we're talking about something different aren't we were talking about how do you get to be super high levels of power  in the clan and the only thing i saw where the board tied anything in the prior art or anything within the knowledge of a skilled artist and to reach that level of a power density was purely based on whatever nits futuristic design would yield assuming that we could ever build yes futuristic design i would respectfully disagree your honor so where can we find that  the board decision with respect ok st of all to the issue of the power density the board again the board found the power density is known in the are in what was a result effect of variable and that's a point that pratt did not contest and it's breezy and that starts at page fifty four dollars of the board's analysis with with respect to the other evidence that was before the board as we showed glebe teaches a power density directly square in the middle of the range at that  i just want to give you another chance because this my question that i asked before to me is absolutely pivotal to how i think about this case and how i ultimately choose to vote on this case and as i understand it it all comes down to whether skilled artisan can make that claim invention based on the evidence you put forth and the evidence you put forth for purposes of challenging claims three and sixteen where nif disclosure and in fact the board relied solely on its disclosure at but least based on how i saw the board and and so i'm asking you what was it about in its disclosure that can show me that i can feel satisfied that it was reasonable to find that in its disclosure it's good enough to enable a skilled artisan to make your claim to action or alternatively to what extent did the board rely on anything else other than that disclosure to support and supplement its disclosure to reach the finding that a skilled artisan could make this claimed invention with the super high power density value use simulation software to design the engine and to test the engine and that's the that's what we we relied on which is called the gas herb design software now the reason you do this is because as our expert testified it's privily expensive to try to build prototypes to cut metal so to speak in order to you know try to construct  construct a working model of the nif benjamin that does not rely on these new touristic materials that's not needed because the claims here don't require any specific materials showed is that a person born a skill in the art would realize live building what's constructed in figure thirteen of net that you would get with all of the materials that are disclosing that not the structural materials but the operating parameters you would get what he testified was is a well behaved engine with thermodynamic properties that are well within expectations that said appendix seventy seven  sufficient data was provided and if paper to construct a model of his engine he used the gas turbine software to do that he showed that his inputs stated performance goals quote nearly perfectly and that the result was quote well consistent with expectations of high bypass turbo ofan and gins and that the results showed a well behaved engine that would meet claim one regardless of whether these alleged futuristic materials were needed or not and where did the board say that what you said and relied on which is what the board asserting to that's that's the declaration and then you'll see references to appendix a which is for example successfully constructed and therefore is enabled with respect to the claimed invent and then if you flip back to appendix page seven hundred and seventy four again there's more data about his model if you look at those for the circle that's the open or overall pressure ratio of eighty seven his if let's say we agreed with you that there was a mistake by the board and how it analyzed unable to question for the prior art would that require  remand would not be necessary and this court could reverse