the board correctly determine that all challenge claims are unpatentable based on two different grounds for each claim the first issue raised by think products claim construction is one of two doesn't reach all the claims but the one of three reaches all the claims is that right  one or two is for most claims in the click save prior are right there is one claim of each patent that's a one hundred three based on click safe in combination with make date but think products doesn't dispute that combination what they dispute is the thing product is prayer  means they send that on the mention cover all of the claims yes make a change covers all the claims so those are alternative grounds of the board considered and those are completely separate from the claim construction issues and from the priority benefit issues so each claim was cancelled for two separate reasons so it's a little bit unclear to me if if think products are still challenging claim construction at the hearing i know they've talked about construction of other terms that were never their construction was s those are both factual issues in the board's findings on both of those issues were supported by substantial evidence and now if the board if the court does consider the merits a claim construction on appeal despite the waiver it should determine that the  correctly construed that term and that was the only term whose construction was in dispute there was no dispute about construction of aware in clause or any other language of the claims there were some other terms that we proposed for construction in our petition and those constructions were undisputed the only disputed construction was the term kept the security route and the board's construction of that term properly gives away the claim language that states that the  construction to view the board's decision however there the decision is really separate in that the board found that there was no support in the priority documents for the claimed invention and therefore the clicks a video comes on right now where the mc a chen combination is being applied is that right and i believe that's what's being a by this continuation of the claims have been rejected there's also a supplemental examination reexamination case that has claims that are under rejection and there's also another issue patent it's a continuation that's out there so those cases potentially could be affected or what happens in this case may affect  products interest in pursuing those for further infringement actions all other cases may be affected turning to the obviousness based on the combination of date and chant for those references the parties agree that they're both prior art and that they disclose all the limitations of the claims think products disputes only the finding that there was a motivation to combine the references but the board correctly found that a person of ordinary skill would have a reason to substitute the automatic lock mechanism of chen for the mating surfaces between the lock and the cap to security rot its own figure two and that configuration permits rotation mcdade also refers to what it refers to as the other configuration that shown in figures one four and eight and it has a way the board also correctly found the chain contains an express motivation to combine its disclosure with that of mcdade expressly suggest substituting it actually a lot arrangement for already a lot and says that that would be an improvement and before the board that was a prohibits rotation so that is a new argument on appeal and there's no support for it  d another issue on the make date combination is that and you know think products has not addressed the issue that we raised before the the and things products council has has not addressed that issue at all i also want to briefly address the claim construction issues i'm not sure of your discussions with council for think products related to claim construction and probably benefit they discuss these other terms and argue which ones were given away none of those terms were dressed for the board they just talked about to get the security right but the other claim language must be given weight and the claims all expressly recite a number of limitations not just the term captive security rod they all say that the gap to security rod has a locking and anchoring and so even if you were to agree with think products argument and claim construction there's other language in the claims that further refine the cap to security r  and finally i want to mention the judge and you asked about the where in clause that issue was simply not raised before the board i don't think that term needs to be construed i think that the terms just in the words of that term just need to be given their ordinary meaning it applied in the board at that neither party requested the board to construe those other terms that i don't think that was necessary however if the court determines that further explanation is needed for the meaning of the other terms of the claim i don't think that would affect the board's correct decision and priority benefits