putting together all of these pieces like our inventors did in our pack so to the extent that may hold true that there is some indication of level of skill here it would suggest a low level of skill that does not support the creative and  second environment that is installed in the wet concrete and we're not claiming to have invented installing tiles into wet concrete our claims are more limited to a specific method of doing that but this second embodiment of the callee which is disclosed and recognized those amongst the different west set of items here kelly didn't appreciate that fasteners could be used in the west at about it and so the prior art artisans and sells didn't recognize this crossover so it's the board had no basis to pointing to other places where that's actually shown they do your honor but i would suggest that the claims are not limited to just putting traffic signs and what some of the claims require attack coupling the anchors to the lower title of the service prior to installation so that your bureau is a pretty simple unit you're putting all of it and the board completed and the examiner concluded that traffic science discloses no installation method at all and so if i suggest it's not enough to go briefing before the examiner i think the most recent time we raced it before the examiner was in the time just before the action closing prosecution and the examiner addressed it both in his right of appeal notice and his actually closing prosecution we did also raise it in our a prophylactic appeal but that appeal was  a issue of loss but you could also be mad if you choose not to affirm based on the obviousness rejections that are before you now and you choose to address one of these i guess rejections you could it's described in the specification so watch that extend may or may not extend all the way to the bottom of the flesh so in other words slots cuckoos holes and the the reference to the place in the specification where let me see exactly where that  is in any case it's it's it's it's part of the it's part of the specification but slots may extend to the bottom of the flange and therefore slots would include holes  reexamination cancelled all claims and they chose not to appeal that there are there are dependent claims in the five eighty one patent that include limitations slots which extend to the bottom of the flange so if you look at the claim differentiation use figure two which shows holes and fasteners i have to get back to your question about where the the examiner addressed are indefinite in this argument you can look at that he proceeding in perspective you have remaining claims to the method of installing this eighty year old device and what concrete and the issue before the board was just whether it was obvious to install an eight year old device what concrete a mechanical device the issue before this court is whether there is substantial evidence to support the board's conclusions that that method of installing that all device in fresh concrete would have been obvious  straightforward and as i said there's substantial evidence to support them that on that point about the simple and straightforward you agreed that you were going to get to the obviousness conclusion on motivation to combine that the  had to assume a relatively high level of skill in the art you know it's that this is a low level of skill in the art first of all all of the references are within the same area of our so there's not a situation where we have to combine references from disparate areas of technology this is the same level of area of technology second this is not a situation where the level of skill and the art mix any difference mechanical devices from the construction area very simple to understand thirty eight has never challenged the level of skill and i didn't ask the board to make any findings about the level of skill in the art so this was not an issue  never raised before the board so it was raised on appeal by eighty eight for the first time i think this is a good case for holding that it was waived because the board never had a chance to address it examined never had a chance to address it it was raised in one place in the record by us in one to follow the grand factors of the failing field to make findings in this case we clearly have findings on on the various grand factors and the board definitely has explained its reasoning and you know what person with a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering or four years experience at this i mean the sort of things but it was that that was the only evidence in the record i think that that separation is in the record in the joint appendix but i was a professor fry the from mit but he was never made an issue at the examination at any point and nobody contended that it made any difference whatsoever just to address what they've what they have said the the combinations based on traffic signs that have demonstrated that draft size has every limitation of the a b a device and we have a chart of page ten have no air trapped underneath and is as you pointed out the way meyer also has a disclosure that teachers of minimising the air and the board has a good explanation they cite a case i think the e w people should reliance case in their opinion that explains you have technical teachings you don't have to import the entire invention to come but when you're combining references you can you can take the teachings from the prior art and you look at it as a whole and what they're doing is they're taking the technical teaching of waymark which is the idea of installing this in fresh concrete and combining that with the rest of traffic science and what a t s trying to do which bore disagreed with is trying to take parts of waymark like the part about trapping the air and then importing that into this conclude by basically basically explaining that these four obviousness rejections that are before the court are straightforward they were explained  that means you have to get from holden's a kelly to slot in the claims and there's no way to get there there's no reason way to get there the only other reference that is close it's lots of traffic signs traffic signs of road sign it's not attacked our warning system in the the reason that's relevant on appeal that you would have slots and traffic signs to use ours are rides to help align the tiles when you install the traffic signs as the board recognize doesn't tell you how you install those those traffic signs road signs and so there's nothing to link together that anyone in the tactile warning industry installing tiles and concrete was using these tiles and rods this was back in the one nine hundred twenty s for road sounds kelly doesn't use r prior art it would be improper to hold our invention disclosure against us to make that combination in terms of the level of skill in the our mr skilling correctly indicated they put on and that's largely because they rejected that rejection because it requires a composite resin that the board ballot is not would not be modified after the traffic signs reference that was metal and so the last point i would i would just and then it was not properly cross appealed and so it wasn't raised to the board so the board didn't consider it and so i suggest it's not before this court for that reason and also so it's not a problem for the court but if the court does consider it i would suggest indefiniteness issue on that term has underlined factual issues so it's not just a legal matter that should be considered in the first instance here and so i see a lot of time so we would respectfully request that you reverse the the pending rejections on the