doesn't disclose the combination of compounds that s f c selected from eric on his disclosure as if he was required to show something more prove that the combination of compounds would have been obvious that is as if he was required to prove that even though a skilled artisan could not immediately envisage a particular combination of compounds amerikana a skilled artist and nevertheless looking at erik cond would select a particular group of whole transport compounds together with a particular group of electron transport compounds claim the claims then it's a patent and you can select a particular groups to get to a group of electron transfer compounds that correspond to component b and claim one but there's no disclosure of the particular group together but particular whole transport compound to go together with a particular electron transport compound it's necessary that they satisfy an energy gap relationship where the energy gap of the whole transport compound is lower than me and or jack of the electron transport responded by they didn't respond by not saying that it doesn't well i mean they did respond by the by i guess i would contrast the response with providing evidence in the first instance so because they never address this aspect of their economy reference this electronic or the energy job requirement when they get later on they can they just make a bold assertion that all of them would all the whole transport compounds would be expected to be less than  put the whole transfer compound in the electron transport compound satisfy this energy got relationship so by leaving unaddressed this issue in there in their original petition this was their chance to provide evidence and  were counting reference was talking about but the question is what did the air accounting reference disclose as it relates to the claimed invention and the claimed invention had nothing to do with the energy again right certainly but  things that satisfy the energy of relationship and it teaches away from the things that do not satisfy you and i think that's part of the debate i mean i understand you want to focus on the energy gap discussion in america but the i think that the the board didn't merely it's not that they found our counter arguments to be not persuasive the that conclusion that this reference generally suggests electronic you know combinations of electronic transfer compounds and whole transport compounds i think they i think the board referred to it is you know formula one compound with a formula five or formula really cares about it's more about trying to understand what was known in the art at the time in the prior our performance serves as evidence of what was known in the art and so what was known in the  whole if if if the parts that are comparative if the parts that are disparage it can't be said to be taught away from i mean that renders the whole concept of teaching a way meaningless so of course  desirable or less desirable teaching a way has to has to be something more than a teaches a way because it indicates that that that combination would be problematic and in this case that's exactly what language it doesn't say the for literally says that it's problematic in practical use when you use the different energy gap level so i understand you're saying but the only way that you would come to focus on just looking at the reference for a baseline teaching including  the prior art and the comparative examples the only way you come to the conclusion re looking for that is if you start with your claims and then say oh well that the claims only require only require light emission so i don't need to feel that we have to be looking at we have to be looking at what is the claimed invention i think that's putting the cart before the horse though so the reference suggests what it suggests now when you figure out what the referent suggests you can look at my claim and say well the claim doesn't require that whatever the extra feature is so it was enough for it to suggest it was suggested so but if the reference doesn't suggest the combination you know beforehand you know going back to my claim after you've discovered that it doesn't suggest the combination and then saying well it didn't have to suggest the combination because because the kind of require that so i think i understand that what is suggested is compared to what is in the claim but what is in the claim is not the precondition to determining what the scope of the teachings are so if you look at the claim first and realize that you don't need to have this energy of relationship that's not a license to go hunting around in the parks that are in the private right that's distinguished over or to hunt around  what's not to what the prior art might have wanted to accomplish like to weigh your claims claim right but in this instance we're talking about the burden of petitioner to show what was suggested by the reference so if i argue that you didn't get you to teach away from my claim that's the argument isn't it that the reference teaches away from my claim the argument is that the reference doesn't teach this general it doesn't suggest these general combinations are so you know there haven't been any there's no proof or there based on evidence and reasoning that was disclosed to be consistent with the positions that were presented by s s a from the outset of the proceedings well it really is slightly different from the argument that you've made if you could argue that that every combination would result in the energy gap that was described it's it's slightly different your honor our position fundamentally was that the that the conner reference disclosed as it would ordinarily do in looking at a prior reference if directed to me to the if recognizing a part recognizing the preferred embodiments and the fact that the reference teaches combining those compounds a whole transporting than one description of specific aspects of this have states argument in different parts of this decision and that's why i'm struggling a little bit not apologize the overarching discussion and the primary discussion of the board's decision that we believe is pertinent here is the compounds having a condensed ring structure a corresponding to formula one of its of its disclosure in addition to discloses whole whole electron transmitting compounds according to the structures of formulas five or six and then it additionally found as discussed in a section of its opinion that the compounds according to formulas one five in six of our economy corresponded to the formulas of roman numerals five one in two as claimed in the six or eight patent and as it states and those are findings that are not challenge in this appeal and as a result of those findings with the board indicates in that section of its opinion that rebuttal points to particular arguments made by the by the pattern or as the board is entitle to do and as a score to settle numerous occasions the board is not handcuffed to only addressing his arguments or  positions from its original decision declaring instituting the i p r or specific argument made by the by the petitioner but in this case the board did adopt the rationale presented by s which was that the ira connor reference disclosed as preferred embodiments compounds that corresponded to the compounds claimed in the six for a patent for the same specific application as claimed in the six for a patent to use the form in a mixture used in a mixture which was what they told the patent office was unique in order to form an electro luminescent the lines that was our position that was the position outlined in the petition and while the patent or  in this appeal suggests that had it known about one specific point rebuttal point made by the board in its decision or another specific rebuttal point that it might have offered evidence declaration of events and should have an opportunity to do some things of that nature the fundamental forward with whatever declaration evidence it would have wanted to present if it had happened to say this is how person of ordinary skill would have butyrate the claim compounds if it were true that the compounds claimed don't have the desired relationship energy gap relationship but it didn't present any evidence in response and there's no evidence in this record of this proceeding that the compounds are claimed do not possess the desired energy calculation chip the additional points made by the board  fundamentally correct when you say that for example at page eighteen when it says with respect to the argument generally but yet admits that it was necessary for petitioner to present evidence related to energy gad the board made the fundamental observation the claims don't resign anyone with respect to energy gap between the compounds and as your honor related with your questioning the fact of the matter is what's at issue here is the obviousness of the claim subject matter which are formulas five and six they are identical to the electron transporting compounds that are claimed in the six for a patent and there's a handful of them or a condo teaches you after discussing the energy gap relationship in the background it then goes on in tells you and as the board found it page twenty two of its decision after discussing after it discusses the energy get educated then it goes on to tell you the preferred whole transporting compounds to use in the preferred energy transporting compounds to use by formula and those formulas correspond include compounds that correspond to the formulas claimed in the six for a patent for the identical application so there's this is a case where there is more acquire more than substantial evidence in support of the findings that were made by the board in support of obviousness that it would be obvious to combine these compounds as the era qana reference thank you if there are additional questions with rick let me make one comment with respect to their arguments on comparative example for they refer to comparative example four as having significance here but the com transporting compound used for comparative example for it's not an heirloom main compound having a condensed ring structure as eric aimed specifically teaches you to use and has as used and as claimed in the six  result when the patent owner argues based on comparative example for about the criticality of energy gab things of that nature whatever the person born or skill the art would see relative to comparative example for when not in any way a fact and they been shown that it would affect the person of skill in the arts use of the preferred and body movements that are specifically taught by our conifer use in practicing the invention again this is a case that is straight forward issues that were presented in the case that presents any legitimate circumstances or ethical circumstances to now have some form of do over to go back and have some further proceedings when in fact the patent owner had the opportunity to present the evidence it might have liked to read any evidence  present it on the issues but did not and then the board made findings consistent with the disclosure of the reference and holding the claims invalid as as the reference clearly demonstrates it should or should have found evidence against her findings that are again the owners i just like to note that the way that the case started is an allegation introspection was made and as another allegation of obviousness was made and the allegation of obviousness was here the reference disclose transport compound here the reference discloses electron transport compounds and because of mark you can put all of them together and in the wake of that is the case preceded it was pointed out that this is not a case like merck in the  the court found specifically that the reference was telling you that all of these references could be used together any reference a could be used with any reference be and that's not what's going on in this case this reference this explicitly telling you that not all a's can be used with all s so now that the rule of merck is not so applicable instead of there being some alternative rationale all these follow on rationales are ways to cram this back into merck to make this another situation where one of ordinary skill in the art looking at the reference would say well you would put all of a together with all of b because of this other reason you would put all of a together with all of b because of this other reason but there's no evidence other than what was presented at the outset the only evidence is here's a here's the merck make it work and because that fact pattern the fact of the present case doesn't fit what happened in merck there's no additional evidence there's no evidence that would indicate that you would choose the specific group to be put together with the specific group the only evidence is that the reference itself there's no other reference was presented so when counsel says we had the opportunity to respond to arguments with declaration evidence when we our response what are we responding to so the issues in this case about whether or not the all of the compound satisfy the energy gap relationship these issues were never presented and i just want to reiterate  runners that to say they want to warn are still me are looking at erik conway at the time of the president invention without the benefit of our claims would look at this reference and say it's leading to these comparative examples that are said to be problematic in and practical use or would have been led to the prior art ones that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of lifetime efficiency i think that's just not how one of ordinary skill the art would have looked at these at the air con a reference in making a determination about obvious