car my volume is appropriate i would like to focus this morning on two of the main characters in this case one of them is factual and the one is legal on the factual side the board finding that the prior art did not disclose dispensing a fully cured product with no appreciable further curing is not supported by substantial evidence because regardless of whether our references like ambiguous if that were correct and we say it is not because vyas clearly disco's dispensing after curing the board failed to conduct a proper obviousness analysis of whether it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill  but the board here obviously had a you know conflicting expert people saying different things and i'll just tell you you know straightforwardly that i think it's very difficult under substantial evidence art and just watch the boy conclusion in that regard thinking here i have two fold response st is that the board pretty much ignored explicit discussion on the admissions of both counsel i mean both both experts parkers experts and laird's experts are in agreement that a supplier would not send a partially cured mixture to a user for dispensing and they both agree that this commercially unacceptable so in this case and goes on yes and then he goes on to explain how he avoids and solves that problem saying if you want to interfere with all crossly do he is up to much word apologize then your honor i don't have to apologize you can agree or disagree with me all on doing is you came forward with a le bron james slam dunk winning basket  citing to what the lighting to what the expert said the testing results and all of this so i'm not seeing the board the boat what is improper about the analysis  which it appears to me with regard to evaluating what the reference says what the various experts said about the reference it seems quite to me you may disagree with the outcome but point me what's in there is so bad so wrong so contrary to what our legal standards are that we would have a basis to reverse the board saw and express statement of dispensing i fully cured product and said that vioxx was silent on that but it is as it is absolutely incorrect or vertical and the board twelve through pages appendix twelve through seventy and then that they have a they have several paragraphs going on in detail and conclude it is very clear from column two that a person ordinarily skilled in the art would know and is taught that the vice composition is dispensable when cured and column three of last tells post that he is trying to achieve full cross linking now armed with that knowledge and the admissions of the opposing experts who are in agreement there are only two choices use either send a product to a customer that is fully cured or you send it that is not cured send one that is not cured at all and it would have been absolutely routine to relieve the user from the the burden of mixing together the five parts that might last much as together and send the user a fully mixed fully cured product those are the only two choices and the experts agree on that the board never took up that question it only considered rather biased explicitly discloses dispensing something that is fully cured before dispensing it is it only talked i think the court identified the issues with blair's argument that on appeal there is offering disagreements with the board's finding asking the court to reweigh evidence arguing the record supports findings that the  make and offering arguments that were not presented to the board or waived and so this is not going to meet the standard of review the board here carefully weighed the evidence disclosure and vs and whether vs suggested just disclosure what's your response to that well you know i i disagree with that characterization the board was conducting a want to preannounce it and i think it's important to look at what laird mixture is cross linked answered before dispensing it would not exhibit further appreciable hearing there after it is already here this terse argument on this plane feature that the board found was  entitle to deference thank you i would like to turn to the ignition layer mentioned in its case in chief and that really turns on a hypothetical question baez does not describe how it's materials provided to an end user their expert still admitted that there's also no teaching in bias about its material being a one part system he'll admit that expert agreed that that vias does not describe providing an end user with a pull in the composition and so that's the problem not only with this heavy reliance on this what later is saying is an admission but as the material proceed through time right that's you know and oxidation reaction that that would be with respect to aging if we look at heating for example during thermal cycling which is when is one of the references that describes that that would not be you know at room temperature and that would not be you know a normal reaction throughout sedation and so person is going arse motivation to combine search and certain teachings and there there was no dispute about what the references taught whereas here we're dealing with the issue of whether a prior reference teaches a certain claim to the teacher and the knowledge of with full cross linking in vyas the board plant construction says tearing means no more cross linking and other things polymerization balkanization but when there's full cross linking and there's no more cross linking the last element of the claim is met now that taught the proceeds that you can't be sending products well teaches how to avoid the interference with full cross linking the evidence after that is undisputed the experts are going to agreement and it doesn't matter whether v says it's a one part system or a two part system the question is what would this disclosure have meant to a person ordinarily skilled in the art i don't have to show an identical disclosure in the reference the prior post see it is not a fully cross linked or he sends a kit and there are many reasons not to send a kit you're putting the burden on the user to blend these five things together in a certain way and come out with a certain product the board never addressed that it is true that the board noted that the experts did agree on some things but it never conducted a proper obviousness analysis and that is a reversible error of thank you we thank both sides and the case