respectfully submit would be understood to be the various combinations so you take three they are as the st layer to meet any of those three materials the nd layer could be any of those three materials the rd layer could be any of those three materials  admittedly you have to read that in the context of what it's done and the rest of the disclosures and what the rest of the disclosure teaches is that you have to have some difference between your top  layer and at least one at one of the layers beneath it so in other words even though that disclosure would by its own terms include say three layers of silicon dioxide or three layers of silicon nitride taken in the context of the rest of the disclosure of what a tiny one of ordinary skill would understand that that's not what's being taught there but that's the only where the board erred was in saying that that water tiny tot that there for you could not have for example a layer of silicon dioxide followed by two layers of silicon that layer at stop in water tunney was a situation where you had three separate materials but simply because that was in the only specific three their example given does not elimi nothing about the order in which they have to be stacked and that is important because it says that that stacking can be used in connection with the st layer being silicon dioxide well if if the order was important if it was important that you didn't have to materials of the same two layers in the same material next to each other the pattern would have thought that well if your st layer and less than clear disclosure of the right the rest of the specification about whether or not you can have two of the same materials back materials and so your honor is right the question is what does it mean in the context where you have three or more layers and again and there i would suggest that given that the disclosure is three or more layers composed no way you could have a four layer structure composed of those three materials record for each layer was distinct so the question was was the border reasonable in saying that each layer had to be distinct from the layers adjacent to it and there it was it just that it wasn't reasonable that it's not supported by substantial evidence because of what a tiny simply teaches you need to have selectively at one point from the top most at least one layer beneath it the board erred by then saying that that would therefore have to translate into every layer having to be selective the with respect to the other the admitted prior art and by misreading the testimony of panties expert and at in their decision had appendix thirty eight dollars they refer to the testimony of hand his expert that was petitioner and they said well all this teaches is that it could be done not that it needed to be done but in fact that testimony if you go back and look at the question the question was was there a reason one would want to do th not whether one could do this so that i think is just a clear misreading of what that testimony was and cannot support the conclusion therefore that that that testimony does not indicate a motivation to com the interplay are inflated layers that however is not in fact supported by a proper reading of the admitted prior art and so just to clarify the admitted prior art which is what independent claimed to be invalid and basically disclosed what what's referred to as the stool damacy structure it gave the example of using and inorganic asking this court to reweigh the evidence and that's not something this court does under substantial evidence review the the issue of what a tiny discloses is actually it's very straightforward the whole purpose structure this multilayer structure is directed to something entirely different than the claims of our patent of a patent it is accords where from the briefing direct to protecting the uppermost organic layer of an organic demisting structure during the stage of the process where photo resist is being applied and in figures five a through i chose this in and in sequence of steps and it shows that there's a st photo resist and then that is used to start making the water part of the channel and then another photo resist to its narrower than a channel and this is all laid out very carefully and want to tie the explains is this dual layer applied over that organic layer will allow the photo resist to be removed and reapplied if it needs to be because it was mis ed without damaging this organic layer that has nothing to do with the silicon nitride edge stops of claims two and seven which are below the vias and below the channels where the dielectric constant matters because that's where this problem of capacitance coupling a curse and so for that reason alone this this decision can be affirmed as the board pointed out ninety s petition and its arguments through trial never came anywhere close for that the location of the said steps in the claims are below the below via or below of the channel to protect the underlying dielectric layers in those structures at that location in the structure the at malta layer edged up in one of tiny figure five is not at that location it is above the upper most or again eclair and that his argument was essential really that because these are all references are all in the same technological field that there would be a motivation to com it and the board correctly rejected it under an ample case law establishing the fact that two references can be said to be a similar endeavor is not enough to establish motivation and so that alone is independent reason whole which emphasizes the need for the adjacent layers to be of different materials and the only fair terp or taishan of that statement or in the context of a three layer structure would be one that would  without going all the way through this multilayer structure and in the context of figure five we see that there are actually two photo resist steps and so one of scaling the art would have no problem understanding that the three layer structure would allow you to realign remove and replace the photo resist at either of those steps the st photo resist or at the nd to do that you would need three layers but once again those three layers w again there's nothing in a lot of time in the board correctly found that the problem for nadia is that when you couldn't identify any teaching in one of tiny that suggests that the adjacent layer should be of the same material and this  brief acknowledged that there'd be no purpose in want to tie me to having edged out with two layers formed two adjacent layers formed of the same material and then you conclude from that well there must have been some other purpose maybe relating to dielectric constants but that's that's entirely backwards because it's one you can see these there would be no purpose in watertown is disclosure to having multiple adjacent layers of the same material a person skilled in the art without looking at the and thirty patent issues would know or find any suggestion to make such a structure and of course they wouldn't have any suggestion to put that structure below their bias in the channel as opposed to where it is located and want to time the structure the court's findings regarding the disclosure one of tinier clearly supported by substantial evidence including the reference itself and the expert decoration of our expert dr bottoms all of which the board considered or considered all of nine years arguments in its own expert submissions so there's no there's really no grounds here to reverse the problem with substantial evidence and although not pointed out in this argument but in the brief nine years focused heavily on the william wrigley case just want to point out there was a case where the piece of prayer are it suggested the very combination of flavoring agent combined with a cooling agent for chewing gum and the question was well but what does it really suggest when there's multiple cooling agents disclosed  multiple flavoring agents when you have to list like that would it be apparent to one of the skill in the art to have the specific combination of what ws twenty three dollars coolant and menthol flavoring agent that's not the issue here the differences there's nothing in what autonomy that suggests using silicone i tried adjacent another silicon i tried so it doesn't matter how many different statements about a tiny may have about different materials they can be used or different numbers of layers there's no suggestion to make that combination it's not a question of whether they are sensible you want to comment on the unusual nature of these two cases one where  demonstrates is that had the board in the micro proceeding stuck with the ground set forth in the petition it would have clearly come out the other way it would have come out the same way as it did in this appeal in the in this ninety proceeding thing and then so because it is the board correctly found in this proceeding and then ninety proceeding there's absolutely no reason why a person skilled in the art would make the combination of a lot of outcome of the micron one but in micron as we've talked about in our position and our view additional references were brought in in order to change that if we were material to the to the ultimate outcome so this is a very unusual showing a reason that the claims would have been obvious based on what a time i would you want to touch on this testimony of our expert dr bottoms because it's important to nine years position basically the questions have nothing to do with the specific issue the actual testimony began with a very broad question about whether it was known by person skilled in the art that you could deposit multiple layers of the same material on top of each other it's incredibly broad question knowledgeable sure that's been known for for decades then he asked if you could you know bring this into the the more relevant context and so the follow up question was well let's put it in the context of dielectric players it's not asking about dual dan a scene structures it's asking about multiple layers of dielectric material well per the claims of the patent that dielectric layers are not the players the dielectric layers or the layers it what you knew that you could put multiple dielectric layers of the same material and i said like inductive device it's a meaningless question and it was a meaningless answer and now there's trying to say that the board misinterpreted it because the board should have read dr bottoms his mind and concluded that he was really asking answering a different question there's nothing in this testimony for our expert admitted anything about whether it was known in the art to form of a multiple layer structure for the via or the channel let alone of silicon nitride let alone with a reasonable expectation of success that such such a structure could be formed with the dielectric constant below five point five that was  relevant question that these claims require my product now nadia to address and their evidence simply fell well short of that they've used this testimony both apparently to try to show that the board ignored evidence of the existence of this limitation in the article that the board had misapplied water timing and that the board had improperly found that there was insufficient evidence of a motivation to combine but because  i just pointed out the testimony isn't even relevant to the relevant to the structure claimed here it doesn't undermine the board's decisions on any of those issues and less or any other questions i will concede the remainder of  thank you your honor just a few points unless of course the court has additional questions regarding the issue in particular the cases that the board relied on to say well it's not enough to to point out that two pieces of prior are in the example in the natural alternatives case where they simply just related both related to the transportation industry an incredibly broad field the other case they relied on securities technologies they related to telecommunications monitoring and credit the broad field here we have two pieces of prior are both related to this same semiconductor structure the same formation and i think it's particularly telling here in this touches a little bit on your question judge jury and which i believe else and so therefore wouldn't be when we combine the laws clear that it doesn't that a reference doesn't have to be addressed to the same problem if one of the ordinary still in the art would recognise that it could improve the structure than either of the appeals and you have the teaching in wa to tani that you can have a multiple layer at stop structure which can serve multiple purposes and so one would be motivated to combine those two references