satisfied that she possesses the necessary qualifications and i think the presiding judge will be pleased to know she is an engineering degree from duke university and the presiding judg columbia i have knowledge of this credentials and am satisfied satisfied that he possesses the necessary qualifications and i might add that his undergraduate is the university of california berkeley so finally fingerprints but you also say it was undisputed below that you can and does not purport to characterize fingerprints according to the amount of visually apparent material they contain strain only its removal and maintenance what is visible versus invisible and pat well the claim construction that reactive proposed that we agreed to and that the board adopted explicitly required a reduction in the amount  pad and there's a bill fingerprints and on the next page or continue the specific problem addressed by the invention is making pad fingerprints less visually apparent to the naked eye so your main argument here on this issue is fingerprints disappearing is simply that the fingerprint can no longer be detected using conventional you know forensic testing powders which involve that the application of chemical agents to the surface to enhance and visualized a fingerprint but the breakdown and degradation of some portion of the look at the content of the of a fingerprint might make that fingerprint hard to detect conventional powders because those powders rely on the interaction between oil page one of the great grief you say reactive services does remarks little to defend the p tabs actual findings and i remark no no no isn't that because you do remarkably little to and evidence also show show that the evaporation of some of those components would not necessarily be expected to reduce the visibility of the stain for example that there's evidence in the record that when the water evaporate evaporates from a fingerprint the result is actually a console consolidation of the remaining materials in the fingerprint to a waxy layer and the board did not identify any suggestion or expectations in art that that the breakdown and evaporation of the live a portion of the fingerprints is going to to lead to duction in the amount of visual observable material and actually as you point out here their own expert dr results when asked on cross click to call is pretty loose about whether it's actually a jurisdictional time women or we're just a case processing role while i think l a are you aware of the supreme court precedent on that point which tells all of us to be very careful about calling time limitations well i think i might point to the decision and close up because they're i mean it's a different context but the court is addressing the scope of the bar and the court is drawing  has i mean honestly i think you're making your argument harder for yourself even if it's not for stiction or you raised it in your blue greet the soon as you were a click to call and if the logic applies should it still be dismissed ye visibility of fingerprints by failing to raise it before the people have as you just stand by that argument we do your honor and i think it's important to understand the difference between a reduction in the amount of visually apparent material and the visibility of the fingerprint stain and we think that though it still latter that was way not the former as reflected in the court's claim construction and i would turn the court to  column two of the patent itself where it equates a stain to the material itself a column two lying thirty eight material it doesn't actually require that it be more or less visible nor could it because as we explained it would raise an indefinite issue because what is visible to one person may not be visible to another there was a mention of a surface of a smartphone or something like that i think as we all know that varies on just the angle at which you hold it so where is it is a visible straight on at an angle so that's what we say sixty eight is that you have to look at the claimed language to determine whether or not it's a new use or not and if we turn to the claim here what we see what we see is that the claim is is merely reciting agree a capability that follows from the steps that were preceding it that that is that the facilitating the removal of a fingerprint by  satisfied by the courier the other part no we're saying that this is is an inheritance result of the preceding steps that is that it's not actually a new use because the new use turns out whether or not the claim or cites a manipulative step and that's clear from if you look at it para cone the new use was applying the lotion to a sunburn area that was the manipulative step it was positively  here all this says is facilitating the removal of a fingerprint when contacted by a fingerprint and that is in fact accomplished by associating the light pays with the substrate because because the life piece will by its very nature degrade a liquid which would make a reduction in the in the amount of visually apparent material if i could get back based on intervening law click to call and this court said that that was effectively waived by the patent owner not filing a cross appeal which would have required the court to vacate the final written decision as opposed to reversing it so we share but they're not on the same procedural side they're already asking us to vacate and remain and the board's decision this is just another reason to do it that that's absolutely true jurisdictional time and it's a time limit on the board's ability to hear these things correct but they raised it in their blue brief maybe the timing maybe you can explain to me the timing but they raised it relatively promptly and their b legally that this court would frankly benefit from from their views on what issues of fact which i mean that issue is a factor in disputed our day about when certain things were filed that's true but as we said we think and there's a the perhaps they would have been wiser to raise the challenge to the board but why are they why is it necessarily waiver for in the raise it as soon as clicked to cause a side because at the time they were proceeding at the board the board don't disagree your honor that there were or decisions but only click to call was was classified as presidential and so other other litigants were permitted to to raise those issues before  whether or not the board would have come out differently we don't know what we do think that there were really matter though that's the point whether the board comes out differently or not we're ultimately going to decide whether three hundred and fifteen dollars a one and b are the same thing or not so we agree your honor again but we would also say that there are there are some factual issues not necessarily about the filing itself but about the relief that was sought because we know that just filing a complaint is not enough can if there are you have any remaining issues about the facts can't be developed by the board on certainly there are what i would say is that this is a pro se sort of complicated because the the the petitioner in this case is both a lawyer a known not certainly we don't think our remit is appropriate in this case but we do agree that those facts could be developed the board anywhere right they're the ones that have to terminate the i p r so if we leave it to them to determine whether they think are there any factual disputes as to them i mean we don't have a factual basis in a factual record as your