particular thickness bump is not a claim term nobody asked to construe it the claim only requires a saucer interconnection that is a layer and it has no minimum thickness requirements well now if you want to that was one of about six  rationales and the only reference to the then this was that that that's just one more indication they think that ford did not say that it had to be a particular size it just was pointing out as opposed to szabados three microns would make any kind of technical or practical difference and no wonder because if it did they would have claimed it and so as we read the board's opinion the board wrote in a fitness limitation that is unsupported and it's legal era particularly under the broadest reasonable interpretation statute standard with respect to the nd legal error that the board made this was wrongly requiring the prior art to use the same terminology as the patent even though it discloses exactly the same structure the board  ok well this figure demonstrates the process of the assembly but when the when the entire implementation is complete there is a layer nineteen of solder that is placed in between them no and it would count no counsel your incorrect figure seventeen is referencing the prior art and as it explains in this patents eleven and twenty one are heated and they become the form they form the connection there and there is not  understand that when a patent uses a number it consistently uses that number identically in every figure in the patent that number eleven in figure seventeen can't be different the number eleven and say here say  or three or whatever do you understand that is that your understanding of how patents are written sure ok so figure eleven and figure twenty one in figure seventeen are bumped electrodes they are not but metal is a shame because there is no solder placed on top of them they function fully and completely to effectuate the jointer of these two chips does not now sound correct as a description of the prior art yes that is correct ok so now when we go to figure twelve which is i think what you're wanting us to look at is that right yes figure twelve and corresponding paragraph eighty three so when you look at figure twelve again we have the eleven and twenty one which according to this patent are bump electrodes which can be used to join two things together but now we have the introduction of a thin layer of solder this seems to me very much a factual question has to interpret the prior art and and how that prior art would be understood by a skilled artist and and so when they're looking at big year twelve and comparing it or understanding you know that figure seventeen has previously been discussed by the time you get to figure twelve you know they're looking at eleven and twenty one as a bump electrodes and i guess the question which i think is entirely factual and not at all legal is there some error in their opinion by virtue of reaching the conclusion then when you add a thin layer of solder on top of an electrode bump that converts the electrode bump into under bump metal is  sion or not the board concluded a skilled artist would not understand the electrode bump to be converted into under bump metal as a sion instead they understood that people would still perceive it as an electro bump which is distinct from the under vote metal is a sion and what they concluded in this case was the under but metal is a sion was the little hashed fourteen barrier most metal below the electrode bump below the solder which is them below it was an electro bump and below it is a barrier metal fourteen and so it is i understand the board's opinion they concluded that a skilled artist and would understand fourteen to be  and they wouldn't understand the electrode bump to be the under but metal is a sheen and that all seems like a factual question am i missing something so there's a lot in that question judge moore i want to address as much of it is as i can the st thing and i think gold electrode eleven with a thin layer of solder nineteen on top of it and recognize that that is structurally and technically exactly the same as what the six hundred and seventy two patent discloses there is a difference in terminology i agree bump yes we don't disagree with that so the problem is when you look at figure twelve of the shot a reference it looks like based in part on how a skilled artist him would understand the description given that that part of the electrode bump is eleven and the metal under that bump is the barrier metal between the chip surface i guess and the electrodes bump you wouldn't normally think of the bump but self as being part of the under bump metal is a sion and and you know i understand you would like me to disregard all that nomenclature but that nomenclature uses a different word your problem is is the electro bump is understood based on the disclosure in figure seventeen to be part of the bump not part of the under bump and  that maybe under do novo standard you'd have legs but under substantial evidence standard i i don't see that you've got any ground at all well i mean let let let's let's recall column one that line fifty what matters is not the work but whether someone who does what she bought it teaches would understand that they're producing the same structure called called out by the claim regardless of what it's actually called and what terminology is what matters is the technical difference and sautter on top and both are formed as protrusions on another surface and so to the extent there is a need to construe what a bump is under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that word even though it's not a clean term i mean not making that construction and did not read those apartments and claim such such a notion is completely unprecedented i thought judge moore's questions concerning should positive original configuration and the these are facts and issues even if under do no standard someone theoretically could disagree with the board's i think was very reasonable decision it doesn't really matter for purposes of review under substantial evidence the function of the structure regardless of what it's called well know because it's moments like that so i think if you look at she bought as original configuration the function o'malley's question the function is of course important because the issue in anticipation analysis is not the terminology that is used in the prior art but as this court said in records which we cite the question is whether there's any difference that resides beyond the language  describe the structure rather than in the structure itself and that's what matters is what structure a skilled artisan would see as disclosed in shabaka and here it's not really helpful to talk about a flip ship because the patent doesn't use that phrase that although claim nine doesn't require a specific thickness it then goes on to say it agreed with the ls size argument that the contrast between and this is contrast in sickness because it's the only contrast mentioned is that should bodies layer nineteen w somehow too thin because it was only one of the three microns whereas the patent specification only went down to five but there's nothing in the patent or in the board's decision suggesting that that distinction has any meaningful patentable weight that was an improper i