upper corner is considered cutting edge makers why is it that a minimum size of that aperture adjacent to that upper corner since that minimum size remains consistent all the way along the length and put simply rather than putting the petitioner to the burden of establishing that  that is if you ignore the twenty pages of briefing saying it would be in the rest of that sentence saying did it wouldn't i took the board is saying when it looked at the structure illustrated in baker and the structure illustrated in your six five zero patent the structures are so similar that you would expect the same outcome with with them so if one pushes as a downward force on valve so that's the testimony of our expert that's why it wouldn't work is because they're cutting edge isn't adjacent to the single in on plan frankly that so therefore you sharing and cutting or not it's not the state different very clear we spend a robust amount of briefing in our response dedicated the to the to the correct position the bigger single problem five there's a pivot where it does the talking about the double sharing to the single sheet and every single occasion where it talks about the single showing which is the configuration of the earth against us it only discusses wiring cable reviews judgments not phrases and opinions can you just pick up where the other side left off about the meaning of baker and the various environments and whether or not the embodiment of the board relied on actually teaches baker itself one of the very first sentences in the background it's just talking about its invention is that right here his argument is well there's a present invention and there's a modified invention and so when talking about the modified inventions which is the part that the board relied on that section of baker doesn't say anything about cutting a tubular member unlike the other sections of baker which specifically does contemplate cutting wire or  member so that that's the point he's focusing on i'd like to hear your response to that certainly on our first not all of the sort of broad statements about the invention are couched in terms of the first clarification about modified forms of the invention  the specifically the portions towards the end of the specification generally applicable statements about the invention that mr homer was addressing again say wire line or tubing so no clarification about the modified forms of the invention do talk about what is specific to the modified forms of the invention but they don't detract from the broader statements both of very inclined to read it as the appellant suggested but the president mentioned in the modified invention being too discreet different body mints and if we were if we didn't think that language applied that's actually not our job right what's the standard of review that we use to determine whether or not the board was correct in how got something right in terms of whether it was disclosed prior certainly or honored in this instance a question what is the standard preview that we use it it is clear error for reading the prior  substantial evidence supporting the board's conclusion you should you should really does that because when you're down wholly in these types of cases the first thing you should come up here and say is this is a substantial evidence case we when because that's the way it usually talked about wire lines or cables white white just curious why do you think it forgot or neglected or chose not to say to be a member unlike in other sections of the reference where baker talking about its dual sharing embodiment it often talks about wireline is the example that it specifically addressing so the intent of the reasons behind describing it in that way are not you know necessarily clear from the face of the document but if talking about specific examples it talks about wireline but broadly it is clear that it says it cuts tubing or wire line and it's it's not just baker that the board  the difference in the claim language between claims fourteen and nine was not raised below it was also not raised in the opening brief here and so we believe that issue should have been waived ultimately judged and to your point on claim nonspecifically the claim language of client nine does not require that the incline surface is adjacent to the cutting edge more broadly though what the board found was that all of a curse cutting edge to twelve or all the baker surface to twelve is the cutting edge it is the narrow surface that performs the cutting function and if the court finds us we believe it should that substantial evidence supported that conclusion it is absolutely shares of vertex with the incline surface there can be no debate that those two surfaces meet in baker's device now mr homer said that the oral argument below i conceded that those that the upper corner and the inclined surface were not adjacent that is absolutely not correct the discussion that that came up in was a question of if you construe adjacency in an ultra narrow sense where those two services must share a vertex then if it's only the upper corner of two twelve that does not share protect the inclined surface but nobody has asked for adjacency to be construed the closest that one has gotten to asking for that first arose in its reply brief in terms of that the board switched gears on the construction of cutting edge that's just wrong a narrow surface that performs the cutting function is the construction  issue in the institution decision the board got to that instruction and all of the parties have proceeded with it since there has been no change the board found that baker surface to twelve is an arrow surface that performs the cutting function in terms of whether baker's inclined surface imparts a downward force to push the cut pipe away from the gate judge jan to your point the board did look at the similarity between the structure between baker and the six fifty patent said the inclined surface when you cut a pipe are going to perform in the same way but again they didn't do that in the abstract they did that based on dr steve expelled analysis and comparison between these two structures and argument about the board's analysis of its expert mr perkins testimony is that the board plucked certain phrases from mr perkins testimony about what would happen when that when that pipe is cut if it sticks but like to take along just to read the full sentence that mr portman's provided he said maker's design will not necessarily forcibly push c t g away from its gate in any and all circumstances because in some cases it's bro sharing surface may not reliably cut well in other cases the baker design may pinch the cut oh c t g ultimately what the board was did was analyze that and analyze dr  ultimately chose not to credit mr perkins testimony but the notion that the board just ignored it completely is is incorrect the board at page twenty three of the appendix specifically addressed dr steve xscape the system about the six fifty patent working in any and all circumstances and ultimately like it did everywhere else didn't say we're not going to pay attention to one's arguments they set out what they found are factual findings the evidence that supported those factual findings and then went a step further to explain why america for dish showing on those factual ultimately what war masses court to do is to reweigh the evidence on almost every factual issue in this case to the panel's point a moment ago every one of those factual issues comes down to an issue of substantial evidence there is substantial evidence here and under this court's precedent the possibility that two conclusions might be drawn is not enough to second guess the court's conclusion ok thank you m