differences themselves would have been obvious but whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious now in this vein is i think it's important to understand the general state of the art at the time of the invention for many why this is so important because mr laws apply these triple casting techniques to try to make a techie per paul using technology that was really designed for none taper pole to to a base like a cement base for example and the argument goes oh well you know that that's a flange and that could be a running well the eight what if i have one pad and was completely silent as to that last process of pushing the the pole through the end healing up in the didn't design considerations for a running ring that's designed to keep the pole from crashing into the side of the definition or other information regarding the structural attributes of the running right well your honor it it's important to note that the claim doesn't doesn't claim just  clear that the patentee in this case he actually made up this term running and i do believe that it's proper to it at least look at the specification for guidance on how that term should be define fourteen and where do you make that argument for my common response that was are you referring to the language at the top of column for between i guess about line seven and fourteen polish push through it could fail so you know there are different design considerations for the running game and i think in hindsight you know you can say oh look there's a flange it looks just like a running ring there you go it's obvious to take the flange and modify actor but it's more than that it's that a ha ha moment where you go hey wait we know these flanges are used for something totally different but what if we used it what if we put pole on the side and we used it to push it along and keep it from from you know that's the invention as a whole and that's what i would like the court to focus on not just laser focused on ok would be obvious to change the flange to do this but you know that that kind of a ha moment that the inventor had to actually use something that was never used for that before for a completely different purpose context the board's construction was correct for a couple different couple of reasons for the base directly on the specifications definition of what the running ring physically it's the specifications as the running rate is simply a larger a larger diameter and it's very clear about that and that's important because again claim ten is a product claims defined by what the pole is equally is the second point is that there's no other physical attribute of the running rings described anywhere in the intrinsic record you can look in the specification of prosecution history wherever you want you won't find any definition of the structural features of the running ring other than the fact that it's a larger base circle or a ring cast at the large of the pole the board recognise that and under the ross reasonable interpretation standard there's simply no other reasonable construction they could have reached to define what the running rings physically is the board also correctly projected  construction of the running ring and they did so because the construction focuses on the what what the running ring does instead of what it is and again that's confirmed by seven of the great grief but the board went further and said that the entire record is devoid of any evidence structural differences between the prior art in the claimed running me they focus on this repeatedly and what they recognized was that the proposed construction that was offered was an attempt to effectively backdoor an alleged method invention into a product claim the board recognized the claim to as a product line and they rejected was construction for that reason under the board's construction there's no dispute the claim center thirteen are obvious but even if this court were to adopt a narrower instruction substantial evidence would still support the court's collusion it claims ten through thirteen are obvious it's undisputed that the white five one prior art discloses a circular ring shaped flange it's a wood that actually be the question whether substantial evidence supported a finding that the board didn't make but could have made it's really more of a harmless error argument you but all the evidence still supports a determination and vacating the board's obviousness to relations claims ten through thirteen wouldn't produce a different result all the evidence is there if you were to remain to the board they would just find the same thing again and  explain why they're that the board was clear that there were they found specifically there is no structural difference between the wide five one flange and the running ring they said the trial record is devoid of any evidence of any structural difference between the flyer  proclaims and the running ring and they didn't want further they said that any that a person of ordinary skill would have known how to configure any running ring to work with any annealing oven or any running rule there's there's testimony from our expert to that effect and in fact w never disputed in the i d r or anywhere in the appeal that it would have been obvious to configure the flange in the prior art form the guiding function in his claim construction so even even under a very narrow interpretation of running ring there is effectively no at the time this opinion was crafted the board knew that aqua products was being reheard on bach and they specifically noted that the issue was to address burdens of persuasion in productions regarding motion to him and they were very careful to note that at the beginning of their they didn't stop there they went further and made a separate independent finding of obviousness the evidence of record also demonstrates that the subject matter of the running limitation or the variable casting limitation which is the other added feature would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill  art they took deliberate care to make those separate independent findings of obviousness and it's clear from pace twenty four that they did that to make sure that decision would would survive whatever the outcome and offer products was the other point i would make that on that issue is that why did flies and no air whatsoever in the board's factual findings that stem from that alleged placement of the burden of proof so even if this clear were to to find some issue with the court's references to the pr the motion to admit and there's no question what would happen on remained the board would again find the substitute claims obvious and we would be right back here we started thirty questions from the panel be happy entertaining otherwise i'll yield the rest of my time structural requirements of that running ring is was it different from the prior physically well there's there's evidence on the record from from not only our expert from but from maclean's expert of the of the these physical parameters then that will inform the structural requirements in terms of the dimensions thickness plink of what the running ring should be now this co and the or the next case dealt with an issue regarding  you don't do you but do you challenge the obviousness determination under the board's claim construction words assuming for the moment one greece with the claim construction of the board on this term running