is judge chen how how would we reconcile cases like mover with another line of cases like medicare winner and henny penny which talk about tradeoffs with respect to different potential choices to make and and so therefore if if there is a real disadvantage is it can all of a sudden become a fact question as to whether to modify the primary reference to incorporate something from a secondary reference that could be regarded as an alternative but at the same time something that explain how i understand what the board did what the board found was that cork talks about certain advantages of having a bi directional  and the board relied on dr goosen for this about how you can detect any problems with quality of data transmission on the fiber as well as it being less expensive to go with a single by directional fiber  unidirectional fibers the board may be findings as to advantages of keeping cork as it is just using a single by a directional fiber rather than borrowing from the secondary reference i believe it's one thing which alternatively talks about the idea d of using two fibers and so then that goes right into the heart of these cases like medicare and winner henny penny which talks about when you can delineate between possible alternatives advantages and disadvantages and you see that there are disadvantages from dislodging from the primary reference a particular element and replacing it with some secondary reference element then there can be a fact finding that there isn't a motivation to go ahead and do that replacement and that's what the boy did here and so therefore a case like labor which as i understand it there was no argument at all as to whether or not either of the design choices was better or worse than the other possibility and so therefore what you were dealing with a nuber was to true interchangeable equivalence then therefore what we've got here is just a simple fact question as to the boy's findings that well going with unidirectional fibers is just not desirable you would keep cork as is using a single bi directional fiber so where in that explanation of how i understand the board's decision does the board's reasoning break down in such a way that it committed legal point that you made you made it for the st time in the reply right this is the argument you made that the board found was waived because it wasn't presented as a motivation theory in the petition is that preamplifier and then and then you're saying well if your expert explains that you could just pop the preamplifier over onto the other side and it would end up on choise l r c card right that's correct me now that you argue below that the salvo already teaches that there is a pre amplifier located on its receiver findings on the cork and swanson combination they are owners oyster resumed her exactly as judge chin resetted a few a few moments ago we were does not actually deal with a factual dispute whether separate directional fibers in cork's by directional environment would have been an undesirable and that that finding was supported by the ct the board's extensive reading of cork a number of disclosures in cork that stressed the importance of using the receive signal on the bi directional fiber to measure and determine fiber integrity for transmitting on that same fiber the board also referred to dr goes and is extensive testimony regarding this point unidirectional fibers is contrary to course teaching because it would result in in effect a completely undetected fiber which could be damaged separately from one of the other fibers and i'm happy to go through that that litany of logic if you're honest whether these known advantages are sufficient to support the proposed motivation to combine absent proof of unidirectional five years as a known viable alternative was already sufficient they say they continue but whether these benefits are outweighed by the alleged highlights the logical flaws of they've made it an advise even though they've waited and that is if they're not going to incorporate it in court why would a person of order is still in the art make a decision in court based on something that isn't there and that simply is a logical and importance of putting an editor on a card and then are trying to use that as an as a new factor for weighing the evidence that was not an argument they made below once again your honour's the board's findings were supported by substantial evidence for the arguments that were made to them there was no