the same single i see where the ground to place each of these components in separate i c s no the boer treated these as distinct contentions i can allegations of a complaint but this is a by statute and agency trial on the merits and there is a submission of evidence that this far transcends a contention and the the submission here was an admission that reef from ground three placing the sequencer in the memory interface together in the same i c is an admission that refutes any inconsistent allegation with ground from ground to now the statutory framework here is that the pet owner shouldn't have to engage in guesswork about how some inconsistent position from ground to has as a line of cases that address these procedural due process concerns and magnum or else answer the proposition that the word most cases the situation arguments are advanced by a party and to which the opposing party was given a chance to respond no in of place in the sequence or in its own separate i c was an issue that was not part of the proceeding because it was never instituted and so that highlights the procedural error in this case it really serious that those respond to instituted issues and i think the court picked up on that that particular argument and procedural protection that's required here but i would submit even beyond that if you set that aside the board reason that  and be expected to challenge grounds that were raised only for ground to win ground through never institute and i p r licensees orts and highlights the problem with that and this takes me to  averages memory interfaces each in their own separate i c apart from one another or apart from their single common sequence or control module you have one single device block with one control one sequence model do we but the board dealt with that right i mean at least there was an expert by the other sob that said that it would have been obvious to separate all components of ordinal chip and the board relied on that expert testimony so what do we do with that under substantial evidence st of the board committed error in that that testimony is not supported by servant the board look to the structures of cern st it said we've already or recogni underground two avenues doesn't place these thep separate self circuitry in their own individual components we need to look to the structures of cern but when you look to the structures of cern all of the cell to a circus tree is placed in the same i c buffer that's i would like to touch on there is a separate basis of error we pointed out that the board relied on collateral stoppel with respect to the earlier ninety seven thousand one hundred and seventy one dollars decisions for the limitations of the independent claims with the configuration when we when the board went to stop well we're dealing with a single device in a single sequence or so the issue of a one to many claim construction went away there's no possibility of aggregating sequencers as a control module across multiple devices locks after she went away but there is one of the many issue of obviousness that remains and that is in a single device block with a single sequencer paired with their memory interfaces whether it would be obvious to carve out those interfaces for all memory interfaces apart from their single common sequencer and cern just doesn't teach that and the board didn't even account for that and and hynix admits that it's irrelevant we submit that it's not at the end of the day additives that is the prior combination that we based our ground three analysis on for the dependent claims its claim to is the basic one and that was where it is it says nothing about where the sequencers are placed says nothing about where the claimed control module is placed and the reason it says nothing about those things because the claims don't say anything about where the control module is placed dependent claims don't even mention a control module and even the independent claim doesn't say where the control module is placed it's irrelevant to these issues and our proposed combination didn't treat them that combination defined at page two hundred and seventeen  didn't there was no motion to amend you know there was not the analysis of the board adopting our analysis in ground three also said nothing about where the sequencer was or the control module in fact the board found that our analysis in ground three is agnostic as to whether the sequencers are placed in the same packages as the memory interfaces could be either way and that's absolutely correct and that's we supported the justifications for that combination with testimony from our expert and from citation to cern and three other prior arrest francis supporting the motivations to combine we put forth  so it was clearly supported now but the board also found that our ground three analysis was not dependent on and in fact applied to all three mapping we use claims that complete conclusion was also not an abuse of discretion that portion of the petition it describes are now says there never says anything about things it doesn't use the word mapping so it's clear that the board's conclusion that our analysis was not limited to mapping to was not clearly erroneous in fact was absolutely correct the board found moreover that netlist never responded to our analysis as it applied to mapping one which was the same mapping used in the prior case from the base collateral estoppel that finding that they didn't respond was also not an abuse of discretion or clearly erroneous because their entire patent owners bonds relies on the mapping to analysis where the address generation circuitry is the claim controlled didn't have anything to do with nothing so what that means is that the obvious can obviously as conclusions of the book is premised on substantial evidence for the underlying factional factual questions in an rabbet unrebutted reasoning for the ultimate legal question of obvious under that it seems to me that it's this the court can do nothing but there's just nothing they said that addressed the actual reasoning that found these claims invalid for  components the sequence or the memory of places are on the same embed it integrated circuits so it's an issue of whether it be obvious to carve out the memory or faces separate and apart from their single common sequence or and that is an to place all of the but teachers of every bush are to place all of the self test circuitry in the same single i see so neither average does everybody admittedly doesn't teach breaking apart the set the various components of it's imbedded circuit the sequence remember interfaces and now we know cern of course does not teach it because it puts all these components in the same i c now as an responded to councils arguments about  mapping one issue here is the sequence or if you're playing a if that's the read and we encompass that in all of our arguments and just to pick one of them it says there's just no teaching for separating whatever you want to call an address unit meaning the sequencer or that the address generation unit there's no teaching for separating address generation from data or control from cern and so there are six sites from the transcript