team twenty two eighty three have you already significant given the arguments was making and the third relevant finding on appendix page twenty two we are not persuaded on the specific facts of this case that is erroneous for the examiner t how did the book i just ask you a housekeeping question this is how this board decision a late to the other board decision that's coming in a band forty five minutes from now and there was a  combination over there too where the board found there would be a motivation to add the switching regulators on the post blowed do you happen to know if the records are the same for centrally the same or was there some distinction that might have driven the board in that case to conclude that there be a motivation that is switching regulator whereas there the board found here in this particular exam that there wasn't a motivation to add a switching regulator to stock a wild zero nine zero slash five three nine there are minor differences in the record but i think it is difficult to escape the conclusion that those who just the intermediate conclusion which i would have expected based on something which is that that effect is in fact desirable ok it sounds like from the way they're talking about is testimony from his testimony to in the grand scheme of things i think your doctor started was testimony doesn't make a difference because dr stark a wall directly testified that there was not a problem putting switching regulators on the bias output regulators free to any down but a linear regulator on the one that's correct and there are other things you can do to make an inductor a switching regulator work the idea is that if the lo of the contribution in steigerwald that one just wouldn't have had a motivation to look at the other things actually shown in starker world i think the way you phrased the record essentially the thing yes the arguments are essentially the same the only thing that's not the same as the board's outcome on the motivation to combine the reference as well the only difference i mean first of all both references t here is correct based on the record before the result there is incorrect but the rationale that the board used in that other appeal was different than the rationale here and therefore you can't switching regulators to substitute him for the goodyear regulators and they've abandoned their argument for the poster who is they say that the substitution would only be made here for the damned post putting him switching regulators in front of the noun salute it was i completely understood the issue and then it went on and said they are among other things the bias loads do not necessarily stay constant so if you start  skill from putting the switching regular in front of these biased loads then the second point if the board recognizes the the important how this for the bias loads are on pulse we all agree with that but but they also vary prosecution emphasize that there should be no switching regulators it off they didn't just say in front of the post outputs he said no switching regulators that there's actually some reason not to use inductors on them on the bias lines i believe either because it's inefficient door because it might inhibit getting enough references that would also play into the evidence and the evidence on the other side of course is what precedent says about switching regulators in connection with three figure three for b but you can't use them with d c voltage outputs which is essentially context of the prior and there's a lot of evidence that would come to bear on that point if the war had probably evaluated nexus there's all the prior teaching the core concept of having two separate smith this case was submitted