all decisions career the question that goes to if you will the essence of the appeal or the issues in the appeal even if that natural decision was made at the time of the decision to institute that's really the question not whether i don't think the supreme court's going to say oh yeah you can review decisions to institute the  you know are really ticked off at the congress in which case the north but i don't think any of us want to go there so the question is can we look at issue in this kind when it comes up on final decision anything we want to find all the syrian even if it was simply a question at the institute stage like should reinstitute b m statute to say that there are certain basic ideas that continue to be reviewable including the question of whether there is a fundamental legal then it gets to my last answer the judge's question that i think i guess it's part and parcel of what my next point is going to be i believe that in the end of the facts of this particular case that the court does have jurisdiction to look at the  this court was saying that that situation you're looking at the boards ultimate ability to determine the validity of a patent and so for that reason it can be reviewed but in the situation of the time are like a sign or a stop will it doesn't or it wouldn't matter who brought the suit they'd still in the fifty's that even of a clear bar on the justiciable it can be overridden in cases where there is a violation of a clear statutory mandate or an egregious error in this case though the the difficulty with an attempt to that and we're confident that the supreme court will conclude that the statutory language final and not on the people means that the decision is final and cannot be appealed sometime when there's just one judge or a justice concern that campaign it's been known to happen in cases but again i am no better at reading tea leaves from supreme court oral arguments than anyone else it's a good stuff for this court to decide whether this courtroom view of whether this case should be held pending the decision here  as a final point i would simply point out that this case was almost a textbook example for why the three one forty bars created the outer pella presented no challenge at all to the board's determinations of on patentability if it were to prevail in this case there would still be in the forty events was agreed rational design that at a certain point these preliminary question should no longer be litigated and that the system is better served if the parties and the courts focus their attention on the final determination of the living in these cases  fifteen minutes yesterday and i would like to reserve two minutes for made please the core of the board urged here as a matter tiny up with two three mechanism was somehow magic words and athena needed to explain with those magic words work if you explain what they were in your petition yes your honor we did we were very clear we clear as a factual matter mr link's testimony about how troy enclaves your operate together have been decided there are no issues left regarding how they work together and that they work rejected by the board and that appealed by a husky when you apply the claim constructions that the board of mission using mr link step aeration it is clear that claims two three seventy and ninety eight are all anticipated just like all the other ones i'm a little bit confused by your answer because when i look at the key taps decision on their request for a rehearing i see that they say even but nonetheless given that isn't there still some question below about what you know so the board could consider it if we were determined that their word corporation don't need to remain and that you believe your honor looking at what the issues were that will raised that would require the board review all those issues were all the side the standard is that is there any reasonable fact finder that would that could reach a different conclusion based on that record it's a kin to us a summary judgment kind of analysis and if you look at what claim constructions were adopted by the board and not appealed the arguments that husky raises in this case about movement it and those arguments were specifically rejected by the board so there's nothing left for the board to decide all of the elements as set forth in the petition explained to mr leask declaration about gaps and in biasing that really has all been decided based on this record so there is no need to send it back for that for that purpose the and but as i said athena did do that but more importantly that wasn't relevant because once choice was incorporated in its entirety and this is the second did we listed no more than three reasons why the appeal must fail the first is that husky is collateral being stopped from raising this argument  really renew it in the in their response which means we never had a like an opportunity to respond to the argument it wasn't it wasn't before the board at the time the final written  file correct they mate they may petition but what does that tell us it tells you that they have the right to file the petition and that grants authority to the reviewable but at that point once the petition gets filed then three four t he kicks it right because at that point then the board has all of  the power that's granted under the rest of the state actually you know but if they say it is reviewable and they're wrong then what and they're wrong and then they make a final decision based on a wrong it clear that they have no jurisdiction when a petition or as far along because congress was very clear if granting jurisdiction very broadly about r case and there is nothing in the statute that provides that that your stiction is limited by a whole host of doctrines that might and we have jurisdiction i think at that point you're assuming that but the the hypothetical is set up such that if it is part of the law the impact of this decision goes beyond a theda right there is a public policy reason to have these patterns adjudicated and decided and that goes beyond any particular assigned order to create it and decided the district court should do and that in that instance it would not have sent it back down but for the fact that there's a you have to decide what gets incorporated not that the entirety comes in so this first of all the second step might be if we pointed to figure three a and we said that and he said that a picture is worth a thousand words the problem with that however is that there's a confusion what is the law in the first two figure three s critical to lock in these devices if you look at it supporting evidence the board's decision rested tyrolese upon their conclusion that athena had failed to describe and explain the pineapple into three mechanisms and even if you accept that as is obligated to do we submit that the decision of the board should be reversed and the case should be remanded only to with instructions that the