can't for example use chemical campbell polishing to form a hole in a very small place on this wind i've got a bit of a compass i'm trying to understand what it is you're really proposing for the claim construction because you say you're not really proposing a plane arise say that it that it's something else it may not be poking a hole you say but it doesn't have to be planar eyes to what does it have to be so if it is for example probably that's thought of as a species of players asian where the top level was removed there are different types of techniques anything from the cell but i mean usually we have presented to us they claim construction that was adopted by the board or the lower court and alternative claim construction and your alternative claim construction is squishy mean everything in that intrinsic evidence uses the term plain arise but you walk away from that you say no it doesn't have to be plain arise but it has to be i'm trying to avoid to use the word the magic word plan arise here because it forms a player surface five as i just explained it is possible to form a player's surface with alz from the latest material from the top and so this is is either me either way and the claim construct one doesn't knock him over or under you claims obvious so that the work does not render the claims obvious because the combination of the board relied on taking what i call the place and it is designed to remove the remainder of the fourth dielectric that was under the masses as well as the third dielectric glare and this exposes the substrate and this for the scales as you were that judge moore was talking about in the previous argument where you take everything together and you reach a conclusion of obviousness and we would submit your own that if you  your claim constructions say i agree with you on both the at the same time in the order of the steps in both cases the board going ahead and me the alternative facti endings under your construction as well and concluded that it nonetheless cause you to fail in this case so can you address what's wrong with those claims with those alternative fact findings that are specifically applying your claim constructions i believe  you if this were to noble but even if i did it's not i have to give deference this is a fact finding there's expert testimony on it it doesn't seem to me to be something i can say is not supported by substantial evidence  and what are your thoughts on that because it seems to me you're arguing the other side but but i don't get to do this to know though you have to kind of tell me what's wrong with what the board did find so the first the first aspect of it the reduced number  comes with a problem and that problem is what is being solved and not them or example three so i don't think it's fair to say that that truly supports the combination with respect to the you know we don't have to use as many tools first question what are the odds of two lawyers coming before us in the same taste both of whom i named craig very low to run it for the future that they please the court there are multiple independent bases up i mean i can i see your argument on the board's argument as to you couldn't read it as it has only modifying one portion of that phrase cut but you're missing a comma aren't  that part is set off by a month from the other two parts and so then the question becomes was there anything to link that ladder of language to the earlier language and there is there's no explicit reference back that would constructions certainly the board's construction was reasonable and because of the plot of one it would also be the appropriate one context the other issue is that the specification suggests that the at the same time benefits and costs that for some applications like high throughput simplicity and production costs are much more important than any loss of depth of focus he also explained that there are particular things you can do to compensate for a for  specification should have put that that language of the claim so here you have the other plain steps that have to be performed in particular order where there is limited language saying perform these  i'd like to go ahead address a couple of the issues with your countrymen addressed respond to a couple of things the first point relates to his discussion concerning the wearing plus and his argument that somehow the claim language doesn't support the idea of accomplishing all three results as part of the same process it's clear from the claim language that all for the results must be attained as part of the same result as process because it says forming a space or forming the trench and exposing the substrate and the only way that that happens is if the third is removed moreover there is that's consistent with the specification and moreover it's consistent with their testimony of their expert testified on cross examination yes all three of these steps after the form as part of that process because there is no such location and nothing more and it's not there and finally with respect to the flip flopping of the order of the steps the last issue that you all were discussing with him