three of those issues where we believe the board overreach the first two issues are clean construction issues where the board construed a claim so broadly her limitations so broad that if they don't do not give any meaningful effect to that limitation and the third appeal is challenge and obviousness holding where there was essentially a failure of proof an undefined obviousness combination and they are not supporting the argument concerning that claim phrase had dressed in a way attached with the seat back frame in case the board's construction imposed has two components for that limitation the first component has a is a functional on it which is redundant with another lamentation limitation the claim and therefore adds nothing to the claim and the second component is that the headrest and the seat back frame are merely linked via air view of structures  member it also states that it has an arm extending from the headdress that is in contact with the background so it distinguishes between where it's attached and when it's in contact with the only reason the board was able to linked by intervening structures with the french so by that virtually anything in the cars link vialli in everything structures that's doesn't really pose any reasonable meaning on a headrest heavily attached with the se back frame so that's our one issue on the zero forty three patent and appeal number fourteen twelve zero two but our construction basically was that the affirmative the attachment the such that if you remove the seat back frame the headrest comes along with it's that was our construction of attachment seatback frame the second appeal concerns to patents and two appeals to my p r s and the nine for nine seven three three patents and those are pure numbers fourteen dash ten seventy nine fourteen dash ten twenty six here again we have a claim construction issue the claim terms are first manner and second manner this this patent it talks about first or second matters talks about those matters having first and second trajectories in first and second for velocities and it also makes very clear that a simple argument trajectory is one manner and one in one  so the board carved up that trajectory perhaps into an upward motion of forward motion or different pieces and that is too broad since the patent makes clear that a man or a simple argument trajectory is one manner and that with the word way they were able to say away as any components of motion so really anything other than purely vertical or purely horizontal in the view of the board and h all motion in reality in that context has two ways there's there's no example there's no evidence in this record of any sort of purely horizontal or purely vertical motion in the context of a seatback frame so therefore the board's two ways construction now reads on anything any motion and therefore reads in the second manner out of the coins the board construction is also and here only ambiguous because under the boards way construction where a way or manner is any piece of any motion you can take an arc to a trajectory and cut it into an infinite number of little pieces no one knows where the first piece stops second piece and so really for three reasons we believe the boards matter construction for the end of that trajectory there's nothing in this obviousness got the obvious combination that they put forth which is again saying using kagi to teach adding a spring and damper they give and there's nothing in the record teaching how you would modify the trajectory of the primary references to get the benefit that cocky teaches no one there's no specific really combination or modification even articulating this record the argument f the findings of the board where you would take the primary reference which has in a sense the wrong project re for this claim take cagney and then jump to using a springer vamp or there's nothing about modifying the primary trajectory to get the cocky trajectory there's nothing in the record on that and that's what they need if they're going to say that the primary reference should be modified in accordance with kagi then they've got to come up with evidence that teaches how you do that the only thing that they've that they've put forth is a conclusory assertion of adding a spring linkage or damper spring linkage or bumper excuse me no one's explained to us where that spring linkage or bumper is going to be placed how the first reference is going to be modified copy doesn't teach anything and in addition to this failure proof the fundamental problem is the undisputed testimony from our expert is that if you just added a spring linkage or damper at the end of the motion you would slow down the overall activation time and the whole point of these had refs is to activate as quickly as possible the whole point is to get the headrest to the head soon as you can there's no no one in the uk there's no evidence that anyone in the out would ever want to slow that down now we were criticised for not proving that that that their modification would work but it's not our bird the undisputed evidence is that you wouldn't want to slow the headrest down moving it quickly at the beginning then more slowly at the end if they want to take that teaching they have to explain to us how they're going to modify the primary reference to get that quick speed in the beginning if they were they can't just say we're going to slow it down at the end and still get the head rest to the to the to the occupants had fastened and there's nothing in the record on this it's a very conclusory assertion of obviousness which is why we say the error here is essentially a failure  three patent are purely claim construction issues we're does not dispute that under the board's construction the prior art meets those claim constructions the last patent the nine five five is a factual issue on what is taught in the prior art so there's a little bit of common thread and i'd like to start with the over four three the claim construction issue there first i should note that the in leaders brief they point to what they say is the claim construction on page one thousand of their brief that is not the actual claim construction that's not interpretation by the words the war is on page twelve of the decision and that the actual interpretation is we broadly interpret really the dispute between the parties of the claim construction the the board also noted that there's another claim the other claims that say are other terms to be mounted  as requiring a direct join between the impact target and the frame but that the board found that the pads he was using this piddly attached with the phrase to be broader to allow for these intervening structure it's under speed the cognate teaches expressively slow the headrest down at the end of the deployment so that you don't hit the occupants head to heart that's exactly what the nine five five teaches and the reasons they have the same reasons the same goal so these are method claims there's no structural requirement for how you slow it down and the board found that first of all both experts agree that one of ordinary skill would understand how to use bumpers springs and other components to speak to to effect the movement and slow down a linkage at the end of the planet and the board use that and said with the if you take in a condo or bring the two primary references which are the board found that both have two trajectories and then you read kagi that says slow down at the end of the deployment so that you don't hit head too hard the board found from the experts at missions that one of skill would know use a spring on a linkage somewhere it's not that's not matter it's not claimed to slow to effectuate that slowing down and that was that was the basis for the combination so there was evidence to support the combination of the general teaching of slowing down and how to do it in in the primary references there was nothing in the claim to require a specific structure for how to slow it down only that you slow it down as you get closer to the head in the second part of the movement and so how you actually do that as the boards as the board cited the supreme court that you know you don't need an autumn aton to things quoted to do the combinations in a specific way but the tools and the things to slow down a deployment like a bumper or a spring or well known obvious tools and that was undisputed by between the two experts the one point that counsel mentioned the expert for for lear testified in his declaration that nobody nobody would want to slow down headrests in its deployment it would take too long that the board found out that was extrinsic and contradicted by the express teachings of cobb proposing to a limited matter trajectory only that matter should include trajectory and i think when you read the entire brief you realize that they're actually trying to limit manage your trajectory because when than a movement along a single r q a trajectory which the patterns described as one man are so they are conflating the two they're either there or they're trying to limit man or so trajectory required to specific trajector the board found two main categories of intrinsic evidence to support their definition of manner and one was in the specification a quote that says as long as at so that was supporting the specification for that there was also an admission by liers expert that one of the embodiments in the specification moved in a single trajectory but had two manners and then there was the file history of the related hand the nine five five which liers brief says that the board discounted it that's not accurate that's in appendix thirty eight the board expressly addressed the filed history of the nine five five as persuasive on this point and that's where lear had a claim that said first and second manners in the nine five five the board region at the examiner rejected that claim patent which just moves in a single arc and later made the same arguments that they're making now initially but then acquiesced and amended the claims to obtain a allowance and the examiner found that amendment to be the reasons for allowance and the amendment was read from the examiners reasons for allowance independence claim one and sixteen or allowable because they resigned ahead rest that movie  matter was not the same thing as trajectory so all of that intrinsic evidence is what the board relied on in interpreting manner to be two different ways so that the head rest rotates forward in response to a reward force applied to any impact target so they're saying that it encompasses that means it could in theory and compass more we're saying that what that that piece right there which which they say encomp is too broad in the sense that it essentially broadens the claim language to merely require intervening structure so it their claim to structure clearly covers what we say it covers that's exactly what the board  kagi does teach how it teaches using a different trajectory and there's nothing in the record that explains how what one would apply that teaching of a different trajectory to the primary references that's why there's a failure so that you didn't teach either we didn't teach how either we did teach higher or we taught we teach a structure inside inside if the headrest has an arms that exten function kagi teaches a single trajectory that is instantaneously more forward the driver at the beginning and less their primary offenses teach the wrong trajectory the primary reference is teaching moving upward initially and then for the driver at the end that's the wrong thing if the driver at maximum instantaneous speak and there's no teaching this record nothing from their expert nothing from the are the teachers how you change those primary references to get from what is essentially the wrong trajectory in the context of this claim to the right trajectory they just say that people with skill in the art know about springs and dampers but that's not that's not in khaki and no one said how you change the mcconnel brief and so i won't repeat them here unless the court has question