specifically i think there are three major issues that we should discuss with you today the first is with respect to the adopted grounds of prior art rejection of the stop by the examiner what were incorrectly reversed by the board and that  is not supported by substantial evidence secondly i would like to talk about the section one twelve issues but before i get to that the three references that i will be discussing with respect to prior art your honors for the get i'm to reference the bellboy reference and the carroll reference  reversal of those rejections was improper first of all the runners there are three issues here the first is with respect to the construction of a clean term drive and that plant construction issue only impacts again time or analysis we believe that the work improperly construed the term again i think the difference there your honor is that there is a coil and that coalition or microprocessor control and a microprocessor selectively can turn the switch on and off of course but also maintain the application of power when it's necessary for the for the drive to run so that is a function that proper electrical signal it has to be evaluated from the perspective of the devices being powered the proper electrical signal would be i need to have this power applied for a particular duration motor to be on and that's why we believe that that's proper and much taught by this reference  also the key for you in terms of the word properly is the timing intended purpose for the motor and timing could be part of that absolutely or i think regardless of what the construction issue is  nder under our construction but under the board's construction your honor if this court is inclined to find that the term dr refers to something that's beyond just this which there was an adopted grant of rejection it's issue twenty in this that was presented to the examiner and it's specifically addressed a combination of the again i'm a reference which the examiner agreed has everything that is taught in the claims and issue of the five and seven patent with the combination of the garrote of the carol reference cal reference is a textbook that specifically is directed to on and we believe that that's sufficient for this court to look at the record to see that the examiner agreed with us that that's an obvious combination and i agree with you and to uphold that the claims are obvious and in view of that i'd like to turn your honour's if i could balfour rounds of rejection and that's the second portion of my presentation prior art and i think there are three issues here the issue that has been pointed to by opposing counsel is with respect to which for it was a tort women bill of operation now let me evaluation of frequency now that teaching is it does not trump other express teachings of overcurrent detection which is expressed within the referenced self and in fact the tartlet mode is entirely optional it is a mode of operation that can be overrun overridden by the operator of the system and in fact perform state that in that mode there is a predicate evaluation of a frequency before there is an evaluation of current or that current that frequency quoted with respect to this discussion frequency is only in this optional mode of portland that is referred to on page three deaths fifteen of the reference it does not state that frequency is a proxy for the measurement measurement to indicate there's a measurement fault it requires the beautiful valuation of current a measurement of current so i think that you know there's express disclosure there that teaches overcurrent protection the other thing i would like to point out and i would like to just jump to carol expressing teachers overcurrent protection and shut down company and that was acknowledged by the examiner in the right of appeal notice that appendix one four zero three not so but the left but the board i don't think they did with respect to any of these arguments or are now well known so every i would like to turn to the one twelve issues if i could yours because i am running out of time and we will come back to carol if we do have some extra time this section one twelve issues and so i'd like to just point you to figure one if we could of the patent and one ninety one and the issues are this so claims eight in fifteen recite powering the d c bus when the drive is shut down for the pre determined period of time so in other words as an application of power to the d c bus when the drives have been shut specification is the d c bus is the element forty eight and interconnects the current sensor which is which is element thirty and the drives forty six that is the only structure that is identified as a d c bus with indispensible cation in fact it's a high thank you your honor but so with respect to balfour i don't understand where you have one five ninety two these fault lines that show flipping as a result of overcurrent and the board says oh no folk sixteen seventeen or eighteen the only disclosure involved or well the fault codes on their face are overcurrent well they used the word overcurrent but the description describes how they actually work and that description as quoted in relied on by the board affirmatively that a moaner get shut down for a period of time and then restarted because of an over current fault the only disclosure is frequency and will point out that this whole optional moment you know we're not talking about restarting after a period of time here we're just talking about whether it trips on an overcurrent situation the claim language is restarting over a period of time but i don't understand that is what the board found i mean that is to other references i guess carole it talks about  up again and the reviewer in the examiner twice rejected this argument and this whole optional torque limit on argument was waived it is a new argument the exam or the board said it's a new argument and it is not properly before this court the court can determine whether the board's finding a waiver of this argument or this on page fund ninety one it says these displays may occur from normal operation from former well trip conditions so contrary to what you're saying this is itself on its face as they're talking about a fault for conditions but that can mean a number of things falter can mean notifying you that there's something going on the culture can mean shutting down the motor of alter can mean shutting down the motor and restarting the motor for tripping me resetting and not restarting there is no affirmative disclosure involved or the board found that you shut down the motor after overcurrent fault and in is i could have said when the current is over an upper limit we trip and that's all sixteen seventeen and eighteen instead the actual disclosure not the absence of disclosure but the actual disclosure says look at all sixteen seventeen and eighteen it trips  when the inverters below the open frequency there is no affirmative disclosure about tripping on over and that's what the board found the board again had this issue come up to it twice and then once in the  sounds to me that is there are two things going on here that there's frequency that's an issue and current that's an issue and when the frequency drops below a certain level then certain conditions present themselves where overcurrent can trigger a fall right but if you're measuring current for other reasons why wouldn't you have disclosed that in the reference so that's a distinction that matters and that's what the board relied upon if you look at the board's decision the board adopts the examiner's finding disclosure to mean when it thinks the disclosure me insane but nowhere does it say that that this is not substantial evidence the board made a factual finding adopted the examiners reasoning's then you know the obviousness analysis should look at the claim as a whole and if the limitations aren't in the references then you don't even need to get to the issue so your honour's just sound for quick quotes in response to opposing counsel who said i agree with your honor's i think if there is expressed disclosure of overcurrent protection fall tripping and shutdown and restart expressly within this reference you look at appendix five ninety two that your honor has been yes and what it gets it said it relied on the over frequency argument when he did exactly what it said that this page five ninety two stuff was qualified and why what happened earlier in the reference he doesn't say that reading this page on its own doesn't show over yes you are that's correct and you know there's also disclosure i think of the automatic restart feature just clear within this reference and for those reasons we thought it was improper for the to reverse the bill for grounds i would like to very quickly talk about the new argument position that's been taken by cause and chance with respect to work limit we don't think that that was a new argument in fact it was an argument that was raised by opposing counsel first on the panel to the p t that the strike limit most of the optional we reacted to that argument in our briefing to work lastly your honour's i would just like to point with respect to the one twelve grounds of rejection in fact the examiner did