of the land and then figure out what to do about what the legal consequences are it seems to me what page one eighty three or something you could in claim in discussing claim six you do clearly say curr conrad combination and then when you do claim seven and eight and nine you have kind of backward looking kind of references to conrad and any other combination any other reference that we can become by it but what you don't do is say this combination is in any way different from any of the other possible combinations the ones at the board actually ended up discussing so what do do we about that that you never said focus on this one even if you disagree with us about the other because there's something special about this combination i don't start out of it is that an accurate summary of at least same so one is represented and i am actually the board says we're persuaded that the patent owner has actually shown patentability over over that combination for the amended claims and so we don't need to had references been combined together there were no features or functions being stripped from references there's not a single combination that the pad owner or the board address this representative of the arguments that we ma wouldn't be here today i believe if that were actually reviewed that this would have been determined differently but it was not so that's where the difference lies there was never a analysis of any sort of represent they want to modify concrete or if i don't and that was absolutely no argument the challenge any of the board so obviously conclusions the primary challenge that we have is that they simply did not address the argument to tell me in english i mean just this just goes to what the amendments are really about in this claim so rather than a cradle what the what is the amended language do or say what is this the new thing added by the amendment it basically requires different that that wasn't even in the prior art that was a record because this is just a new additional concept i mean it may be the most obvious thing in the world it may be there's not even any really prior art there because most people know that if you primary argument should through the level and i think any reasonable reading of the record shows that it was not well it doesn't have to be primary right it just has to be an argument that they made it doesn't have to be prime well i think i specifically discuss the conrad current combination in deciding to enter the substitute claims the board also never really addressed any took what mr proper referred to as a subtropical of approach take away the cradle replace it with something else and so it never really faced the substance of the current conrad combination put aside the machine that is carrying the tire and for us the importance it and the message is that it's the human that carries the tire and that's the important difference and also the original claims there was no emphasis on the importance of the specific obvious if you reference a plus reference b plus referencing pointed us to parts of those references explain why it's obvious but they didn't do that this repeatedly did something else they put all the teachings in a bucket and then they dumped the bucket on the table and they said there it is it's numbers on them they could be disruptive they could come in and they did not have to lay out the rejection in any specific way because the burden is not on down to establish patentability under the board's current rules for motions to end the burden is on the movement the person trying to make the motion so they can come in and say look this stuff is everything and they could talk about her and then the next breath talk about home radio or talk about her and in the next breath talk about the lives of the eight and seven patton they could hammer home their theme that these elements were all over the prior art and they did that and there is no dispute in this case that in fact in their blue brief they actually acknowledged that the board got to the accurate point in this case which is not whether or not specific references have specific teachings but whether there's a motivation to combine  all but having presented their argument that way there is one thing that's off the table they can't come into this court now and accuse the board of procedural just by not talking about a very specific combination that they even so let's say they don't they don't they don't develop that specific combination and the board later we lived on that specific combination of what what's the burden on the board to to lay out it's point so what would be wrong with viewing their current argument in something like this term precisely because they treated her and of them to do that i think they could say we talked about all this didn't change please let me show you how current connected to something else renders this invention obvious they could do that but with can't do is say and by the way before created a procedural problem this case by not talking about that specific example but these references are on the case the bird was not come through to establish i'm town ability so if they want to posit a hypothetical example of where you can put a lift in a hangar together and why and why that would have been obvious and why the board erred including wasn't obvious i think that that would be an argument that they could make but i don't think what they can do is say the board procedurally erred as a matter of doing its job by not talking about that specific nature when it has not fully developed an argument about that combination i don't know if that answered your question thank you thank   that doesn't appear in the other lift arc the difference here is really what we discussed earlier with additive versus attractive the board found the plan would not modify the korea left by taking things away but why it why aren't the