affirming the examiner's this vision and obviousness rejections in this case that's the anticipation our position is the board erred in either not engaging on the critical issue with respect to the claim term package that is a package require manning mechanism and or concluding in a way we believe to find that the prior art met the claim limitation package even though we would submit it undisputed it does not have any form of amounting type of enter from action is to electrically in a connected packet the package to an extra mile circuit so that the patent discloses two types of mounting mechanisms which perform the two two functions they lee hold the device in place fix it and they also electrically connected to the next level in the background of the invention of the patent specifically talks about through whole approach a dip for example and talks about those being more difficult to manufacture and in the embodiments figures four and five in particular which show the sort of finished product show sort of pads one bottom  which at the time of the invention was a well known solder mount surface mount a package in the other environment shows solder pads on the top and on the bottom which was also at the time of the invention a well known approach to a surface  mount mounting mechanism for a package so in addition on this issue of package this court actually addressed the same claim to her in the men's tech decision we think this is a somewhat different that a staff construed package to require protection from the environment and first and second level in economics that's correct but the court also went on to say that their construction required that the package be connected to a printed circuit or i'm sorry neither construction require that back be packaged it can be connected to a printed circuit and we've not taken the position that a printed circuit were perceval required i will say that and you know as a practical matter that that's how these these devices are connected to the next level they typically go onto a p c but you're right and we cited in them start for that very problem vision or the like it's this court s can ignore what this court has said is an important characteristic of an invention so it goes to this issue of why we think having a asc the complements come together in a way that that securely mounts them to the next level as well as which we connecting all of those extra two sources consistent with our understanding of what a package meant at around the time of the invention they talk about two ways of of mounting a package surface mount and through hole there's nothing in those references it's in and in fact to suggest that is mounted it seems to me the best analogy i could come up with is if you were interested in you know if you bought a new flat screen t v and you hired an installer and you said to the installer i'd like you to map out my flat screen t v on my my wall in my family room and you came home and the installer had plugged it in and simply sat the t v against the wall and plugged it in you would be very upset because your t v is not mounted on the wall simply because it's plugged culture and has no mounting mechanism and no where did the board ever explain where a mounting mechanism is in halt and we would submit to you frankly the board's analysis on this is wholly inadequate i think even as a matter you know i was thinking if this court were to  packaging m m's microphone at around this time was a major problem a serious issue so the examiner rather than giving any explanation just simply concluded it would have been obvious one appeal for the first time we now have the board substituting an an suggesting that the mode of operation of an e c m microphone is somehow similar to the mode of operation of a man's microphone we would submit we never had an opportunity to respond as low as a fundamental matter of this court's precedent that  at a bare minimum it should be remanded for us to to address it is it is an factually completely inaccurate conclusion yes they are both microphones but that is about where the analogy ends men's microphones are far conclusion i can i can come to is that the board felt that b r i standard authorized it to basically ignore what this court had done in the name stuck a decision and for whatever reason looked at the halter in reference and said we think on the claim construction issue noles would like the term package to include not just housing and protection from external forces and first and that through a socket or a connector or directly to another wire those are some examples that the expert discussed in this case and the examiner discussed as well  the extrinsic evidence all support the construction that it need not be melted to anything it could be connected via some other method so the claims to start with th claim here is plain one and it claims a package claim fifteen is an independent claim which is narrower and it adds an additional element such as a solder pad or other things that make it mountable still not necessarily by through hole or surface mount but mountable and that is that the narrower of the claims and then if you look at the weight nine patent which is and so it said that it has to be to a circuit or other system it does not say mounted doesn't say to a printed circuit board it doesn't say by a three pole or surface mount i don't  by a surface mount but package standing alone does not have to be so they are different claims here and we're at issue in memes technology and that but the claim instruction that we are talking about is is the same one that this court was operating on humans technology and it on top of that the  and connectors and directly to wire that's it page twenty nine zero three of the joint appendix and the examiner discuss that in his decision and regardless as we mentioned in our brief to connect to a connector and certainly it can do that but the but dr tamala in the record here explained that  holter in could also be soldered directly to a printed circuit board and so even under the construction that requires mounting to a printed circuit board by a through hole or surface mount halter and could still be circuit if i may move on to the method claims quickly the examiner and the board both determined that you are in a i don't know how to pronounce it that the capacitor unit that the capacitor microphone could be replaced with culture in silicon capacitor microphone and that it was a simple substitution of known components the the principle on which the capacitor microphones operate was well known it is the way capacitors operate which is that the distance between two plates reflects a voltage and if that distance changes by the pressure of sound then the voltage will change and so the board explained the same principle which is that the simple say that this was a simple substitution of  also the construction that we are talking about was is the same as i t c's construction and this court's construction in men's technology and construction of the word package is the result may be different because of the different claims at issue but the claim term itself as construed by all of that different tribunals  not have the phrase surface not a hole in the word package it just has the phrase package and in analyzing the claims of the two thirty one patent this court set the requirement on quoting from appendix thirty one seventy four the package is thus an important characteristic of the claimed invention mountable package that's exactly what this court held was the important characteristic of mr meaning invention and this approach that we a mounting mechanism that does what and what those two mounting mechanisms do those are the only two disclosed an intrinsic record and we would argue all of the extrinsic evidence is to that point not a point the source or may that i thought was kind of interesting