should just the claims so let's look at the due process issue in the institute's look at the facts briefly institution decision the board gave its first claim construction for the poorest metal structure claim terms mob they relied on that claim construction in its response and presented all evidence based on that claim construction in the final written decision of the board completely changed the claim construction for all but was different in the institution decision and invalidate patent based on the new claim struction form abbate we never had an opportunity to address the new claim struction we never had an opportunity to present evidence of a new claim construction and in fact all the evidence that we provided was given little or no weight because the board said it was essentially directed to a wrong claim construction so the indispensable right of due process is an opportunity of notice and to be heard and we were given either by changing plea instruction midstream as i understood the institution decision e decision the board said i'm reading here we're not persuaded by partition or proposed claim construction i e a structure that is sufficiently poor so as to permit bone and growth petitioners pull a proposed claim destruction does not give sufficient words sufficient meaning to the words in the claim that was correct then with the board didn't find it recision they turned around and used that exact same plane construction that they did they did that they just about in the initial decision and used it to invalidate the claims let me let me re claim language recites that the poor structure has to have a size and shape of natural human dog the claim doesn't relate anything regarding the function with the board it is substituted the structure of size and shape of bone that's the that's the pacific shape this specific so as to have a porous fiber metal structure that emulates or imitates a size and a shape of a poor structure of natural human bone it says it right there right but they never address the issue that you have you never address the issue does the art of record teach a structure that has a size and shape of bone it's a simple question because that's what the claim recites what about a twenty four we credit specifically dr harrigan's testimony that the force metal structure disclosed in claim language and the claim interpretation that it shows in the institution which track the claim language when they're there parroting the claim language right here in their analysis for why rocker in fact futures this particular claim limitation well what they should said if they want to set it correctly as they should have said that rustic or teaches the size and shape of bone which they didn't know they were there avoiding the central there to avoiding than that the central issue in this case this is the forest structure prior are have both the size and shape of all that's the question and then the question is what is the shape of on out they said we determine that the broadest reasonable target station consistent with the specification of the ports middle structure claims terms as they do not require emulating the size and shape of all where does it say that that's in the final written decision i don't have the i don't have the patience for i mean i design recall from the board's decision and they they rejected your theory that emulating natural human bone is restricted  to cancel its own right because they saw in the specification that human bone could be referring to cancel as bone or cortical and so therefore it said question does the prior are those the poorest metal structure the prior art have the shape of all that's what the claim says and that's the question that needs to be addressed when you're doing your analysis they did not do that in fact they read its opening remarks of first of all there was no change in the claim construction between the institution and the final decision as judge chen recognized basically an institution decision the the board had substituted the word emulate imitate for emulate and in the final decision the board again maintained that plain meaning construction and rejected at the movies attempt to read end of a limitation that the forest metal structure was required to have rods in plates that are seen in a particular type of  material wrap around this woman implant zimmer's x per provided testimony that a person is going to art could have made that modification and the board accepted pierce testimony on that and there's no substantial evidence there's no evidence demonstrating that the board lacks substantial evidence to support it's another argument that if you were to use omens manufacturing method on as board recognized this is obviously material that can be made into complex shapes and so as care start teachers you don't necessarily have to kind of follow the pr reference his teaching work with the other references to board cena and to the board say when using bobbins material on someone's device you would just use whatever manufacturing method to make bobbins material and and not use on a manufacturing method for the pad now actually again i was just so specifically addressing your honour's question you know it's like you said that the board said that so that's what i'm trying to figure out if the board actually said no the board  is that right to be fair i don't think the issue of pricing was necessarily presented through dr harrington so the testimony and the reason why is because it wasn't necessary to have a the court i'll recheck the record but i don't record to recall those of the board saying anything about pressing if they did say something or pressing would have been to defect of obvious material it states to be strong so it could it would be able to withhold which stand certain amount processing but i think the point here is that the board did recognise that album material could be made into very complex shapes and so you would just avoid the processing  step all together that's just not necessary that's the testimony from from heritage in the board zoomer mentioned that there was no change in clean construction i respectfully ask you to compare the claim construction of the institution decision with the clean destruction of the final word decision they're very different with regard to substantial councils now saying that it doesn't work are those that i don't know that's the first i've heard of this this is a new argument to me and it wasn't presented to the board for my baby presented publication evidence called the main publication the main publication was published by dr matthew franck who is professor emeritus of i would state university in that publication they took bowman's material exact same material and they said let's try to cut it he could not do it this was five years after filing the patent application they came up with a new patent method to actually cut it it's called infiltration and then they filed a patent and they figured out a way in that publication and i  submitted the diagrams they go into great detail they show diagrams why you can't cut this material because the stockpile because of the forms it is it destroys the material in the final rescission here's what the  that the peter basically said we're not going to get any weight to that evidence because it's quote directed to a more fragile version of the material i'm going to be directed to a more fragile version of the material when the main publication showed pictures of obese material actually cited bogans article saying this is the mature we're going to try to cut oh we can't cut it failed it destroyed it there's also another publication that we know the boarded a forty three was talking about how your expert dr hen that's when saying well it was commenting about he was commenting about bob in my own material and he were to make a bomb of material to emulate the structure of human bone whereas and so the board concluded that the experts were not actually addressing the specific materials h you were to make that adjustment then here are the kinds of problems you would have to that read versions not the actual version of bobbins material itself as i understand it that was the board's criticism of these two doctors testimony you know i i gave a short closing so much time i tried i travel all around asia hong kong china singapore and i give talks on u s patent law and i give talks to large universities technology centers and technology companies on the largest in the world these these these entities follow patterns all around the world including united states at the end of almost every single presentation i get the same question from an audience member each app can change claim construction that stream and not give notice and an opportunity to be heard based on that claim construction can reduce it to a functional gest can read out in the final word decision structure in the claim just regard publication evidence based on a nebulous concept of what material is being cut when they said it was buildings which ariel by a team of disinterested scientists this interested scientists couldn't cut the material when the board can do that in order doesn't have a