substantial evidence of motive to combine and would start out the kadam or patent makes it absolutely clear that the time to change the temperature doesn't make any difference at all as long it meets one requirement and that is that the time it's equal to the time to change up the gas or less so the st question is equal or less than the time to change up against counsel so you have jury had three questions related to your argument that you bring up in your argument a motivation to combine the two presented no expert testimony to  support that those three questions did you and it seems to me that sampson introduced expert testimony and your your argument is supported only by inventor statements but actually i think our argument is based on logic and i yet don't think we need but we're really looking under a standard to review here and the what we're looking for is to whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence and a decision has been made in that regard and that's what we're we're  reviewing can you address your argument with with why there's not substantial evidence supporting the decision well that's what i'm trying to do and when i'm singing st of all is given what can america clearly teaches at the time to change that the temperature doesn't make any difference at all as long as it's equal or less than the time to change out the gaps so if we take a recipe that gives the a specific time to change the temperature there's two possibilities i want to inspect time is equal or less than the time to change out the gas in which case it doesn't make the slightest bit of already mentioned you made to the board in that these are arguments that you made to the board yes in the board made its decision based on the expert testimony present that rebutted that and i'm trying to say that matter of logic it got to the center we don't we don't get to reject substantial evidence of an expert opinion just because you disagree with the logic and you didn't move to exclude group the st one with the control that succeeds there is expert testimony which is evidence supporting that actual determination and in a substantial evidence review if there is evidence that a reasonable person could rely on to support that and that's up and usually expert testimony that hasn't been discredited is enough are you saying this expert testimony is so unreliable and and so out of bounds that it's just not credible yes but did you make that challenge to the board yes and if they rejected yes and did you raise that challenge here that it was abuse of discretion to accept this  if the if the if the evidence makes no sense logically how can you accept it in just stop and think about this what p maher is saying is it doesn't make any difference what the times to change the temperature what their expert is saying is that you should use a recipe and that will improve your attorney argument is not evidence i'm not talking about evidence from talking about there's two possibilities one is that the time that you are with a certain point in the recipe is equal or less than the time to change out the gas if that's the case it doesn't make any difference to what in the board also say that it's good motive ready to provide better temperature control in order to enhance reliability and prevent irregularities in the products that you're making yes it does and  know the board is saying that you could get better kind of temperature control when something says something is better you need something to compare it to  the other thing that the board said and probably the main thing  my summers recipe would have been able to provide accurate temperature control of the substrate temperature because the recipes would have allowed the acar control of the thermal history kurt argued in both of our briefs that that is basically it called polity same the same thing in two different ways you stop making think about the recipe is designed and it seems to me that common sense tells us that if that's the case there is no showing of motivation to to combine certainly not substantial evidence thank you thank you the morning your honour's may please the court as this court recognizes this appeal involves a purely factual issue motivation to combine in finding a motivation to combine the board properly considered all the arguments and weighed all the or those types of species into kind of more of because it would provide for better temperature control and that sat for example in the decision at a twenty six we also have in kata more up why why would you do that more the reason you would do that is because it is important to control the temperature change in ca tomorrow because if the temperature temperature change exceeds that time to change the gases throughput would be affected and to change the temperature is a factor in ca to morrow and that you can find it in ninety four dollars of the appendix so if you look at the totality of the evidence the evidence here more than supports the board's factual findings on much more us control recipes would yield the benefit of providing better temperature control thereby enhancing reliability and preventing irregularities in the manufacture devices this is because much more as recipes would allow record so there is more than enough evidence in the record and as this court has recognized during questioning today it is not the court's job to relay the evidence we think the board evaluated the evidence and looked at