is the issue on the motivation to combat the viking and good references as you know the viking reference to just a drop by sprinkler system with manual drinking and the with reference teachers and automatic part inconsistent and undercut the board's legal conclusion there and like to start i guess by directing the board's attention to three sentences of the final decision which i think frankly she four in the figure on page two is like the wood device improves on this manually operated prior art device providing for the discharge of condensate automatic and then just a few sentences later at the end of the next paragraph t so in the factual findings the board found the reason that would be a a recent visit to substitute the would automatic drain for the bike scene manufacturing correct and that it was to do you are like what you're trying to get wood for is the vent and i know the ventus is part of the lease you think it's part of the automatic drain correct we didn't correct me if i'm wrong but i thought you argued that you would have the would drain how the board construe your argument that's correct and that's what we think that's where we think the legal there are a lot of why is it legal err i mean even i mean we didn't make your argument very clearly i mean i get what you're saying is did not give a full developed motivation to combine to the board for a face on this theory yes well so i mean if you didn't you had the obligation to present if you didn't present evidence in support of this theory then why would the board have an obligation to go down that road well as i think we did present evidence and the evidence is the wood reference itself which provides explicit motivation not to get a well i mean here's the problem the border town known as nations combined that's a factual issue that we've interviewed for substantial of this if you're making arguments that of course nobody would have said to use would to get that by adding a second motivation to combine because all you argued way she would add was and nobody would add a second automatic training in addition to manual training that's got to be support it says do you think that there are but that suggests let me make clear my hypothetical is not suggestions and that your argument is substituting it is adding the drain from drain valve in one of the vents or you could put the whole colvin and i think either the way it is is a problem but once you add a valve in the motivation to add the valve is to is to automatically drain it's not to get gas but it just so happens that it operates that way and that's the point that once you found the motivation to combine and it doesn't have to be for the reason that the pattern or the motivation to combine is to eliminate periodic manual draining and what you do then the question becomes ok there's a agree that there needs to be in us a us free man here to consider the other grounds do you think we should go ahead and decide what the board did on these grounds or just remand the whole case it seems like you should remain the whole case with us we're going to do this decision i guess if we're going to we're going to if you're going to have a decision yes i guess it would be helpful to the board to have that information since we've now gone through the process of organ this case it's probably helpful to the board to have that describes the venting and controlling the pressure some of the doesn't release the water is that the case no it's not the case your honor the seven hundred patent distinguishes and in this referring to there is the operation of of what's claimed where you're displacing oxygen and you have to do that in a at a preset or adjustable limits and would even if you were to do the entire combination that the appellants or are going for today where there is a substitution you still don't get to the claimed features because it would if there's water present it's not sending any gas up and it's certainly not sending any of air from wood is incidental to its operation a knowledge that there is air that might be just charged from wood but they also found that that incidental discharge of air did not meet such close balancing pressures language which was what the again it's a shorthand for what's claimed if we look at what's claimed we see that they fit this place at a pre set or adjustable limit and would you don't know how much water's coming through you don't know how much oxygen at any point might come out you don't know if it's ever make findings on that but i think what i'm arguing is that even if you take into account and say it wasn't going to trip the drive myself you still don't end up with the claims then because you have no idea how much water that when you close the top valve if the chambers not full of water some gas is going to come out but no one would look at the drum drip and no one's claiming the drum is a vent just because some gas comes out it's the same idea of what would be one of ordinary skill in the art looking at would water no it shows a venting of air only if water is not present that is the disclosure and what it says when water is not present there could be vented and that's that's a distinguishing feature because when you have a claim that's fucking about is it's basically saying that you could open an automatic from valve in a number of different ways you could you could have electronics there and you could hook up a clock to it something like that but they knew that there was already a pressure regulator on the air compressor and would so they use that as a clock to say to put enough pressure on that valve to open it every so often to get rid of the conversation and when you read would reverse condensate in almost every location there's there's a couple spots where it says it acknowledges if there's not enough water  there when the pressure gets lowered then some some additional gas might come out but that's an incidental and the board acknowledged that and called it incidental forty p s i so that when the pressure drops down the thirty five yes you know at forty the the valve is going to open and what water's going to come out pressure is going to drop within a thirty five c s i closes again and when i'm ready to turn the pressures so w one separate requirement this has to be an up operational system where we're not tripping that valve it has to be in service but it also separately has to have a vent that this oxygen venting feature at a pre determined or a preset or adjustable limit so even if you were to say that would wouldn't trip the drive pipes out that still doesn't get you to the claim this is a separate requirement of the acknowledged the board also found that there was not persuasive evidence that it would prevent the drive belt from tripping and and that's certainly helpful to our case but even if you don't buy it there are other reasons why and the board identified why we have additional features in our plane that that would preclude a finding of obviously here and there's substantial evidence to support that which is you know the big question for me is there's sort of two prongs to it  they did bear the burden so even if we hadn't provided evidence and in opposition the board with free to find against them because they didn't carry their burden but we did actually provide affirmative evidence that supported our positions through expert testimony and in poland's opening brief they mention it once but only to agree with the statement they quoted and then the reply they set up a straw man argument was irrelevant but it's actually not irrelevant to the construction given that the seven hundred patent even in its claims distinguishes between drains and vents but but i also think it wasn't essential for at least some of we're dealing with a number of findings here and any one of them i think would support the finding of non obviousness so even if a court were to assume that we needed to construe events for some reason we still have these other features that are you know even if you were called live event it still doesn't do what the rest of our claim require so i don't know that we would need to send it back for a construction there on cents per se with respect to the s a s e i didn't really understand your second point  was because there was a clear directive they found in three eighteen a that required on a claim by claim basis that the board had to institute all claims to challenge for none and that that was a clear directive of the statute that had been violated and therefore that says that they said it applies to claims and grounds i don't think no i don't say that i said what i said is that they're not dressing the institution they're addressing the final written decision which is supposed to address all grounds and they say it was an you're right that they did find that it is all about the claims and then to work backwards if the final right decision needed to address all claims on the institution decision needs to and they were able to address that there weren't bartender three fourteen because of that that's a different factual scenario here we don't have a clear direction that i mean it's really are tied together in other words there is no argument about the institution about our review being barred unless we accept the fires institution on all grounds and not just all questions so i know you make that argument let's assume you lose while we are dead from review here well isn't it the same there it is not way i think if you take that reading and size and you are correct and i don't think we can read that say as that way and the reason is because the closest they come in the in the decision to talking about grounds is i think this binary choice language and about the petitioner defining the scope of the trial and they were doing that all in the course of talking about whether you need to have a final written  well i think on the on the spine or in choice you know it was based on the language of the statute that says whether to institute and we see that language actually in other parts of the a and if we interpret  sas as saying that whether to institute means binary for entire petitions and all of the grounds raised in there we run into conflicts with other parts of the day such as in three twenty five d that also talks about whether to institute or order proceeding under this chapter chapter thirty and so on that what it's talking about there is when it says whether in determining whether to institute order a proceeding the order of proceeding is referring to re exams so we have the same language of whether to determine whether to institute and then in three twenty five the extended into re exams but we know from sad reexamined are a claim by claim ground by ground basis you don't have to accept or reject an entire reexamined class just we were getting set up for a conflict in the way we would have to interpret this whether to language if we were to take a broad view of it and say that it's a purely binary choice as a petition level because then we would essentially be saying that that would also be true of the reexamine level and we know in s a s the supreme court even agreed that that's not the scheme that exists and reexamined so i think we have to there may be other conflicts as well this is just one of them that i think we would be created and i don't think we need to get so we can limit staff to what was being addressed there does three eight and they require all planes look back at the institution decision you have to institute in all planes to get there and again that's clearly erroneous when when the system is pressurized to forty the valve the valve has to remain open to drop the pressure back to thirty five the pressure drop is essential to the operation of the valve you're losing twelve and a half percent of the volume of that system when you when you when you drop from forty thirty five you do that nine times you replace the entire volume for place the entire volume of the piping system so that is not incidental that is how the system operates now the purpose of course the board's correct that the purpose is to drain water but but they operates at a pre determined limit to prevent over pressurization there is no other example of a limit in the pen so a pressure limit has to be a limit and in addition would describe that addition to the pressure of pressure limit it has a discharge or