inherent but then they also said and i'm at page sixteen of the appendix if that helps you focus on what i am the board found it would be inherent but then they also found based on reset buttons we are persuaded it would have been within the knowledge and ability of one of ordinary skill to control device with a remote control that includes play and record buttons so they did find obviousness with regard to buttons correct do i understand your argument to me that's not the same thing that key for example and these particular cases are more actually in fact in many if not most of the references at the time you had to push a rewind button and then a play key in order to get play yes you are not and there board appears to be confused that we don't know exactly what the standard the board to use in the connection of the stand up for you having see the board after the use natural result as a keyword that task as suggest please the court michael kidless reunify patents the morning your honour's there is one question in this case and that question is whether substantial evidence supports the finally by the board of one button played back to what we call it they call it the soul of limitation this isn't a question about inherent c as they would like to frame it for this court rather what the board did and what we argued below is whether the electronic device of  itself performs the functionality of a one button play that we showed to the satisfaction of the board that it does then the question is well is there a that they control circuits to perform that functionality this is an electronic mechanical device well there's i am sorry i think that what you argued to the board is well and good if we review the board decision we don't review your arguments to the board so why don't you focus on what the board actually held explicitly on pages sixteen and seventeen of its opinion yes or instead of what you argued to them but they may not have actually expressly stated in your opinion i believe that they did your honor and let me let me point you to this first well there there was a finding but the finding was that it is inherently including i don't believe i don't wouldn't characterize it that way your honor but i would expect that that was the word the fourth used therefore we find all not inherently includes the recited control circuit you you wouldn't say that's a finding of inherent c by the board yes your honor but first they addressed the functionality what they said was that unified mentioned anything about the simultaneous right that's a different issue than the one button so i don't ok go ahead next i don't believe so your honor because if you look at page twelve of the appendix this simultaneous recording and playback limitation includes the s language on page twelve of the joint appendix you'll see this limitation is what the board was looking at and say if you look at page seventeen just for winds three through sack that limitation is have that and says in here and here in me preparing inherently and not obvious that right i think my the way i read this opinion is that the board found that the functionality of the device was obvious and this gets to your point judge more about the obvious matter of design choice of the buttons they showed through the preceding you know ten eleven pages of the decision that the functionality was here in terms of that everyone agrees the functionality might you know i mean it's just pouring back and the board of grass that but what about we're talking about something which is the idea of when the use respectfully i would say that on page ten of the joint offenders you'll see that the board specifically said that we have reviewed all of the evidence and arguments are detailed explanation of the prior art i'm sorry where you quote this is on page ten of the joint appendix you're in the first paragraph and the board says we have reviewed petitioners detailed explanation identifying where each limitation is there that it would be one reason it would be obvious in light of the reference what they conclude here teach each limitation that is different from a conclusion that one of the limitations of be obvious to a skilled artist and in light of the reference so i don't see how that doesn't actually hurt him tremendously rather than help you i think the bit with the board your honor is doing here i think it does help us i think the boards to say that we think that but i don't follow your logic well i think what you need to read from this language is that the board is saying we reviewed all the evidence of the picture and we believe that these two references teach all of the claim limitations i think that's perhaps the most language by the board but in the following so you may say so what you now say is loose language by the board because i've done enough patent cases to know that when you say a reference teaches the selman it means that reference discloses that element it does not mean and nor would the the board ever say it means that element is obvious in light of the reference those are two different concepts you're a patent lawyer you know this so you now have to tell me that this is loose language in order to get where you want to go i wish it hadn't been for the language would say that what the board has done here is said we're relying upon the petitioners arguments and evidence and now i would say you can judge told two pages twelve and thirteen of the joint appendix we're now at the very bottom the board of twelve the board is saying because this claim language recites said playback is subsequently it soley actuated by to begin to delay play that patricia describes claim one as requiring one button playback and then they go on in that paragraph ma thirty one to thirty two of our brief which has which cites to pay paragraph sixty six to sixty nine of our experts declaration which provides ample evidence from support of omer itself quite well done in my confused isn't this entire board says as i pointed you to the the board specifically looks at your entire petition and our declaration says we're convinced that by a preponderance of the evidence the petitioner has proven its case and then goes on to recount arguments and to adoption of every one of the next fifty or sixty sentences which articulate your arguments that were made and cite your briefs that one sentence some pages tendency now an explicit adoption of everything you've said there after your honor yes in conjunction with that page by page ten as well as on page seventeen eighteen and twenty one by page seventeen we find the board says we find that petitioners provided sufficient evidence to show that  teaches the recited simultaneous recording and playback that hole of limitation page eighteen and we are persuaded petitioners assertions and evidence show sufficiently the resulting system would include each of the limitations of independent claimed one it de claim to and you know i dand that's language saying that the references disclose they contain each of the limitations but there is no dispute that omer doesn't even disclose buttons the word buttons or keys it doesn't appear any owner reference anywhere so you have to get to obviousness in order for you to succeed because omar just talks about a remote remote could have a toggle switch it could have a knob could have all kinds of things there was ample evidence in the record you something does omar disclose buttons or keys anywhere and he does not your honor our position has been that it discloses remote control operation as operated by user and the and we presented a case below into the board found that it would be inherent to have a record and playback button on that remote and it would also be an obvious matter of design choice so those buttons that's true but where did the board say and it would it be an number one the board on as i've pointed this court to on the bottom of page twelve and thirteen it's crediting our evidence i think that's number one but there are also subsidiary factual questions here there's evidence in the record as the board says on pages seven and eight for example in there it's a joint appendix seven and eight they specifically find in described how the omer device is independent recording play that simultaneous recording playback that the mechanisms recording playback are different in that it's controlled by remote control and they also cite on page eight of the joint appendix this three step process which counsel described where you reports are reporting you wait and then you discloses each of the limitations the one place where they do use obvious matter of design choices with respect to the buttons being on the remote control and i think when you tie that all together again at page seventeen the paragraph or b seventeen which counselor first to i think now the board is saying ok we see everything in here and by the way it's going to be inherent but there's a control circuit so i think that's the way i read their decision so your honor i think as we've just described there were two issues that dragon alleges that the board didn't even address one but in play back i think i've shown to this court that that that in fact that they did and that it's supported by substantial evidence this court should therefore affirm the decision below but even if this court disagrees this case should be remanded to the board for further consideration and not reversed thank you