question what what the patent sets and what that particular language says dr mann syrup or talks about this extensively in his declaration is that the it maps status table according to the specification has two bits per half track those are two digits so ciro zero for something that hasn't been initialized that's all it hat's but then you might logically ask as i think your honor judge like is doing tepid but the specification but as document sore points out the way he understands this disclosure in the specification is if you have the status on the desk the status is recorded in a pre determined area but the location could be recorded for example and he explains why the location would be something that would be determined by the drive itself not by the desk that is for example you might have the first half tracked ok but that the board doesn't have to accept that as well because the board have to accept the testimony of the board doesn't accept the testimony the board has it doesn't have to address all the evidence your honor but it has to address at least some of the evidence or any you are entitled to a rational discussion of what the analysis process of the board went through disclosed halftracks being listed in the status of that and that we find that this is a disclosure of position information recorded on a pre determined area of a recording medium they then go on to explain it further and they say we notice discussed above that siemens further disclosed keeping track in the status of that map of which half cracked have been formatted as well as which have tracks have not been formatted that's their explanation they do have an explanation the problem is there is no evidence support your explanation if you look at the hassling or potations of c well it is their interpretation of time and that there is there is expert testimony from l g s expert that on the status bit map the way he reads the specifications in his expertise the way he reads it is you have just the two bits there that sounds to me like an argument that the board has to accept your expert testimony over its own reading of the reference while the board is not permitted to use its own technological expertise to override of all of the evidence certain recognized be able to interpret references it does that all the time of course reference as your own but here you have a technical question as to whether this language in the specification includes because whether this language in the specification means that the position information is on a recorded on a pre determined area on the desk then saw report explains why what that means is that the position information is on the drive and when the drive interacts with the information on the desk it can reach a conclusion about the position but the position information is not recorded on the desk in a pre determined location and hassling says nothing to the contrary and the board i would submit is not permitted is not permitted when there is no evidence on one side on a technical issue and there is evidence on the other side in a technical issue to reject that the only technological evidence because it puts an expert testimony if the other side puts and no expert testimony that well the expert testimony is reasonable can't so you're making an argument for that tech that call witnesses or expert testimony will always win unless there is an expert who disagrees hop out of them or the film of lee with some expertise in this area disagreed they can use their own judgment board did hear is it first of all it did not discuss the complete lack of evidence on this technical issue on the other side and it did not address the substance of should reject the only expert testimony on this issue but it interpreted the seaman's reference and said it means this and it in either case is saying that the board is entitle do that that's what it's supposed to do it's  see and here's a reference they can't they rely on things that aren't in references but they can certainly interpret the reference a lot of these cases would come out the other way if they were interim title to do that what i would ask the court to do was to compare two sets of pages in the joint appendix at pages twenty eight seventy two twenty eight seventy three you have a detailed explanation by d meltzer or as to what this precise language that you asked about judge raina means what it means technological on the other hand at page twenty seven sixty six he was the only discussion by as t's expert of the siemens reference with respect to these clamps and there is no discussion at all whether status information is equivalent to a position information or whether the position information is determined area of the desk so you have a i would submit a very detailed and well argued set of evidence on the one hand you have no evidence on the other hand and the accept that testimony for the following reason we don't believe it this country testimony i have no analysis of that then have to sidetrack or inverse and describe why they're rejecting the testimony they have to explain why they reached the result which they did which they do here i mean in every case they've got to go through a list in and say we consider this piece of evidence that piece of evidence and explain why they rejected all of the a general explanation as to why they reached the result only thing that their experts said about siemens in this context and you have detailed evidence on the other side you want an appellate court are entitled to a rational explanation a written explanation from the people to have as to why they didn't accept the only evidence that was in front of them that doesn't mean that they can't do their own interpretation of references but you know they are not there in a scientific experts there are scientific experts who are in front of them and if you have scientific evidence on one side and nothing on the other substantial evidence requires that if they're going to reject the only evidence there is no front of them they component but here i'm talking about a qualitative show that is evidence on the one side and zero evidence on the other side zero nothing but i don't think you're going to get a lot of cases with no evidence on the other side what would be the case if the question was before the the what does seem to mean and what that had me and there were no experts at all they simply submitted it on the record and i think first point the references are evidence the siemens reference is evidence is plenty of case law along those lines l z argues that siemens fails to disclose determining whether initiation should be performed based on position information the board explained properly why l g is wrong substantial evidence supports the board's decision particular have tracks seaman's of figure five step fifty two at column for alliance forty one to fifty at column five lines thirty two to thirty six at column seven lines twenty states that track numbers indicate position on the disk if you look at siemens column three lines nineteen to twenty one it says can  located by giving its track number to fix its radio distance from the center of the disk and its geometric sector number to fix its angular position that's position information they have tracks listed in the bitmap are clearly position information that's what the board found the board found for instance in the final rescission a page eleven in page thirteen three it says quote half tracks listed in the status bit map siemens which is evidence is telling us that they have tracks which are position information this argument that the only thing in the bitmap is status bits is to put it mildly it's plainly wrong the board's decision is supported by substantial evidence g it's briefs also argues that siemens fails to disclose setting an initialization mode in accordance with detecting a recording command that wasn't mentioned today but it's in the bruce l g is wrong detection of that great command triggers the initialization mode in at least half fifty two and fifty three therefore siemens does clearly in figure five it did tax it recording commands circular declaration and see whether the p t have actually dealt with the arguments made by documents or i would submit that they did not and again on a technical issue there's a technical question here as to whether or not the position information is in the status bitmap table or whether the position information is for example on the drive which would not be covered by the clams temple was not at liberty to simply take its own interpretation of that technical technical language in the reference it was required to look at and examine and to compare the expert