case as a small of the case as it may seem on the face actually presents i think and issue of great importance and the issue is that an issue that may change fundamentally how certain references in favor of what the specifications says about those drawings or must the teachings of the drawing be independently our minds independent of the written spec that is is a picture really worth a thousand about six inches off the ground bouverie it's a child's right and so on and it's an area where if ever there was an area of that that the picture explains it all that you look at the thing my five year old six can understand how this thing works can understand  i'm accepting that but i'm saying that you know addition to that if you do combine the two references you don't get the attachment to the driven member in a in a way doesn't work because the prior art references don't show attaching this wheel to the to the driven member well that that's interesting unaddicted that the court expresses that you because i don't see anywhere in the this prior art of a hand on watching the the wheels rotate back and forth in the shaft on which the wheels are mounted to drive driven wheels rotate what i understand it didn't order prevent the things i'm tipping over left or right you have to get the so called and that's the problem here the problem here is that the song figure one conveys something you pick it up and you look at it and the picture tells a thousand words given that provide question is does this to school and  image it reinforces that and i think and this is dangerous it's a dangerous road to go down respectfully say that to hide behind the notion of did the specification have to ready the whole because in the real wheels to the side of the body of scooter because well what's the big difference by doing them with an arm or a tension at the sides of the scooter i mean you know that doesn't seem like much of an invention well it and the board also looked to the record of this case and found that there wasn't evidence in the record of this case to support either anticipation or obviousness rejection so and it makes  the scooter tips over during a time substantial evidence review you're also looking to the entire record in this case you'd still be looking to the specifications to decide whether or not the board's findings that figure one did not show all of each and every limitation claim limitation of claim one was correct and when you do go to that specification it clearly shows that the board was correct and made a proper factual finding and that represents substantial evidence to support their decision but this is hundred times based define the stand the board my apologies the feed from a portion of that structure is equivalent or is an arm extended from here from the stand arms defining point one however you look at the song reference a description of that figure appearing big extended from the twist remember you're defining it trying to save the area here but that is the problem i have with that is that i don't see that reason in the words decision i see them them caught up in i do think it's odd i think britain would put the wheel anywhere once you know about the if you will stop that square and i think you need to look at the prior art and see for all teaches individual thank you