court in this case the board found claims one three seven and eight of the a one one patent to be obvious one of the core disputes between the parties in this case is whether the claims require both the storage and supplying of pure hydrogen or whether the claims only require the supply of pure hydrogen as it exits the small cavern the board held in this is the pages twenty eight and sixty two of the appendix the board held that quote the claims do not require storage of claim three claims three does require the storage of pure hydrogen and understand that your view is not only three in that respect is no different from the other it's well you claim three has other differences because claim three also has the in that respect in that respect that's right but claim three also as somebody argue for the board that claim three was different from the other claims in this respect i'm not sure that there was a there was a cameron and that there would be motivation to scrub when you took it out right well but what what the board did not find is the combination of all of the elements because remember what the invention here is is a combination of a supply pipe for the supply pipeline supplies pure hydrogen and in times of high demand that hydrogen goes directly to the customers in times of low demand that pure hydrogen that goes into the contamination was going to be hydrogen dioxide would not have attached if you will the salt cavern to the direct pipeline quite the contrary all of the prior art that existed in that was cited against these found that there might be a risk of contamination as a general proposition yes the board did not find however that the risk was carbon dioxide that it was carbon dioxide from storage in a salt cavern and i come back to scots talking about liquid hydrocarbons and the board actually agreed with our expert that the physics of the transmission of carbon dioxide from a salt cavern into a that's stored there like the liquid hydrocarbons of scott was fundamentally different the only thing the board said is that was a matter of sighting our own expert was that it was a matter of the amount that was that was given off but the amount that was given off in this case is the other side that it requires pure hydrogen going into the cavity there is no reference but teaches that there is no finding by the board based on that claim construction and that also infects the board's failure to take into account a playmate with regard to secondary considerations because this claim deals with a ninety nine point nine nine percent purity hydrogen and the board dismissed our  secondary considerations arguments on the basis that we were only focusing on ninety died point nine nine so called ultra high purity hydrogen and of course that's at least long with regard to that even under this under this court's decision in rambus there are only has to be a reasonably commensurate relationship of the secondary considerations obvious that evidence excuse claims sets forth the requirement of full story and supply under a product purity specification we say that the board was wrong all with regard to that because the storing also has to be under a product here in the specification our friends have said that's the that that's true is to claim three but not as to the other claims we say that it's true as to all of the claims in that case as i said the same analysis that applies to claim three doubtful as to all of the claims because there is no evidence that there was storage of oprah pure or pure hydrogen in a salt cavern prior to this invention and the secondary considerations are powerful in this case particularly when coupled with the ancient nature of the art as this court set forth in the leo that citing old art nobody came up with this idea why didn't they come up with this idea well the answer is that there was no reason for them to come up with the idea because no one him morning the board's findings that a person of skill in the art would have known that hydrogen could be contaminated by carbon dioxide when stored in a salt cavern and with us also have known that it would require purification before delivery to comply with the product period inspect are subject to review for substantial evidence in an effort to escape that deferential standard of review practice their attempts to manufacture legal issues are going to the board misconstrued the claims in argue that the preamble of claim one should be construed to require both the storage and supply of hydrogen that complies with the product purity specification but even adopting this claim construction wouldn't change the result the board expressly found that the prior art discloses to a person a skill in the art that hydrogen stored in a salt cavern could become contaminated with carbon dioxide either through mixing with the gas are you present in the cavern or through exposure to true regardless of the purity of the hydrogen when it put into the cavern second crack there contend that the product purity specification limitation of claim to should be construed to require ninety five percent purity or greater hydrogen and that the board erred in they're not in declining to impose that numerical limitation under this claim construction also the result here wouldn't change it's undisputed fact that at the time of the zero one one patent ninety five percent purity hydrogen was already being stored in a salt cavern at the i c i t site facility as is disclosed in both the photo and the party or references it's also undisputed that it was known in the art to supply hydrogen complying with the product parity specification including ninety five percent or greater hydrogen as it's just closed in the c g a references the board's decision sets forth in detail the substantial evidence supporting it findings that a person is still in the art would have known that hydrogen could be contaminated during storage and that regardless of the purity when it was put into the cavern it would have known to then purify the hydrogen to remove those impurities before delivery to claim eight and finally with regard to the photo reference the photo reference mentions ninety five percent purity hydrogen it does not however say anything about hydrogen being subject to a product purity specification and unless the court has for questions that's what we have to submit thank you