errors require that the court reverse the finding regarding gross and remand for consideration of secondary consideration in light of the correct claims struct the board conflated the first two prongs of the big deal analysis the first prong is designed to capture that prior art that is within the field of endeavor the second well your honor the the point here is if you read a rose and rose itself talks about dealing with spills over the side of the microscope slide it explicitly address about  embryo specifically refers to spills over the side when it when it migrates off the it do you think this is still in the past and should be included too should include people intentionally pouring liquids refrigerator it doesn't matter that spills over to the next shelf it might save you from wearing more stuff on that shelf at the end is that this is a vacuum which isn't that it is a fact question but it has to it has to address the relevant facts and whether the liquid is on the surface intentionally or unintentionally is irrelevant to the technology it's irrelevant to the problem in gross the might may be irrelevant to the technology but it certainly is not irrelevant to the problem the problem is contained spills but as mr mills testified it doesn't matter for the purpose of what it's doing containing spills or containing intentional the hydrophobic material does not move the difference and one of the skill in the art would know that when they would want to kill me i looked at angles they will know that it doesn't matter how it gets there mr mills was unequivocal when he said what matters is what happens after the liquid is on the shelf that's his testimony spills are irrelevant  behind how to get to the surface is irrelevant it has to be your question your honor touched upon are we talking about a shelf that contains an intentional spill if you would bounce a claim construction adopted by it's a natural consequence of the technology because of the low profile because hydrophobic surfaces are exactly whom a golf slides to contain a small amount of liquid in a specific place if it's a smaller glass panel it contains smaller samples no question about that but the please do not have the size in the taishan there is nothing in the cleans that limits the clique to any particular side panel if you read the entire pat no where does it talk about size and all or size matters the only dimensions that are referred to are in the examples and they are just thoughts about surface area because as you make the surface area larger you can contain more liquid as you make it smaller you contain less liquid but the process is the same the structure and function of what seen in grows is identical to the structure and function of what's in the claims and that makes the prior art under the second  the spill spill interpreted to mean an unintentional release that makes this testimony irrelevant because that leap construction is erroneous when you look at the pattern there's nothing in the pattern that emits the skilled in the art look what it plays into this it doesn't matter that's what the problem of the patent is solving is spilled which is i think properly construed to me accidental spills so who cares whether it physics of it do not distinguish between intentional and unintentional releases and grows is pertinent to the problem of of unintentional releases because it works the technology works unintentionally but it talks about spilling it over when you're manipulating it and how that's undesirable and how you would want to do that and how this new technology prevents that which is exactly what we're talking about we were intentionally putting that liquid under the slider you know but after it's on the slide the fly might be manipulated might be knocked off if you hit the supply it might spill over the side those are all things that that happen again because it matters only what happens after it in some part of the servant that's what's important what happens when it's on the surface and that process that technology asking that way as you're putting it on and afterwards on the flight it prevents m one of the let me just answer the question once the judgment in this case is final all the events have occurred that determines whether or not a stoppable applies there's nothing else it's going to happen it's going to change the parties legal rights that you can get out a softball question review later whether it's properly applied we don't need to divide it now you know because we cannot get a full review i respectfully would like to see the rest  obviousness grounds here and they don't have the right to get f brief that in their view a stumble did apply in our responses no doubled in the reason that we put that argument in our brief is to clarify that when you look at the overall statutory scheme we believe the statute works is that these institution decisions are non trivial decisions and yes one can argue or can make a decision to pick certain grounds and move forward in certain rounds and not going for another go so the only applies to the ground state but that's our that's our interpretation of the statute that's how we see the statute and that's what we've advocated or agreed now to the extent of whether this is would be an advisory opinion or not we understand that that issue is not the issue that's being reviewed but we felt it was important to address that question because we're trying to interpret the statute and that's part of the overall statutory screening plus the count asserted that as a reason why they felt we would have to review these non nonselective grounds her response was no we don't have to review those we get to select which grounds we're going to move forward on we make those the rounds as part of the i p r that's what moves forward and that would that's where stoppard kick in on the grounds that were selected the grounds that were part of the i p l and fact i think if you furthermore if the stop a bit of life think of it this way just my pragmatic view no one would ever come to the p t o to file a petition for i p r because they never want to be a stop so what would they do they would just end up in district court and they'd sort of look into it to be there and we would completely only way to read it however we understand the court's concern over issue an advisory opinion we understand that but at the same time we felt it was important to make that argument in our brief to explain why or other aspects of the statute  interpreted and we think our position is completely consistent with the close of as well as dominion dealer and i think st jude and several other cases and so in our view the review ability question of our institution decision that's already been decided by this court want the p t o to have this discretion to potentially deny certain grounds or certain petitions because we are sensitive to the fact that they have to manage this the luminous docket and if somebody came in with hundreds and hundreds of tons of ground petition you cannot possibly expect the agency to move forward on every single ground is can expect that so i don't think it would be workable if a stop along plied to the non selective times so i think that's pretty much where we stand on those two issues i don't consideration as to whether or not this it is obvious or not in terms of examples of intentionally forming in the record is a video that s s w used to demonstrate the technology in light of the examples in the