by it and he said as you can imagine the field of vascular stance is an extremely crowded field yet at the time of this invention in two thousand and one no one had succeeded in making a gra having a textile layer and an expanded poly tatra flora fully in life there bonded together and the primary reason for this as explained throughout the prosecution record was that it was well understood to be exceptionally difficult to buy and p p f e do anything much less a textile layer that is going to be and sorted into someone's body well the board a position but what i'm struggling with this i am not the fact finder and i have to give substantial evidence of and did the board say enough like when you do so why don't you focus on why do isn't sufficient for them to have concluded there was a reasonable provide sufficient evidence we contend that it is not and there are four main points we wanted to raise the first being that do like all of the read all of the references in the record require the person do while there is a long list of various materials that can form each layer as well as she says if you look at what do actually teaches and provides cricks press disclosure of it's of a metal honor we submit that if in fact do had provided a reasonable expectation of success that polycarbonate your thing could be is in the said situation it would the reference would have disclosed its use for that purpose and another important point we wanted to raise your honor is that you have to take this in context in the context as provided by our declarations and the extrinsic evidence we submit at the time of this invention and even still today the context of the understanding of a person still in the art is that this type of bonding to this type of a substance is not expected to work and while there is a mention and do of the  polycarbonate your thing that he said there is no working example there is no detail discussion into or any of the other references that would have informed a person still in the art that this common understanding which even the patent office has agreed was was the common understanding that these types of this type of a substance is difficult to bond that this would have worked in this circumstance and if you again if you look at the other references of record you have shown that which mentions it he said again in passing and teaches that the bonding can be by essentially melting a textile layer to the underlying viewing more decisions first i would like to address your question about your comment about the breadth of our claims our claims are actually pretty narrow we believe claim one for example so our claims are fairly narrow and we are trying to claim this specific combination of materials that is nowhere combined in this manner and in the prior and as discussed in the briefing we have a second grounds that we believe should be that the rejection should be written reversed for and that is that the prior art does not enable the claims of invention and even though this is an obviousness case the law still requires that the prior art enable the claimed invention it's not enough that the prior art enables itself to set the prior art enables in obviousness rejection do not need to be individually enabled they do not need to enable themselves to be applicable prior however the law we believe it is clear that the prior ar there could be multiple references that together the question is whether the multiple references collectively enable the claimed invention and that that's that's the relevant for here is as your honour's certainly no is a did novo review so here we have a little more deference to the to the standard of on the standard of revealed and the four primary points we want to make as to why we believe that the that the prior art does not enable the claimed invention is that first there's considerable and largely unreported evidence that it was known to be difficult to bond  d to anything our specification discusses this the declarations discuss this point the extrinsic evidence we presented also discusses this in the examiner and the board agreed with that general statement examiner even went so far as to say that he agreed it wasn't expected that p t s d could bond without a surface treatment but then there's no subsequent discussion of what surface treatments he envisioned second point there's not a single working example where expanded polytech for flora i thought lane is bonded to a textile using it he said even though this was an exceptionally crowded field virtually all of the references that are that are applied by the patent office mention p t s d yet none of them provide any example where it's actually bondal this was something that was at the forefront of everyone's mind at this time y together there are mentions of these elements individually but you would be required to pick and choose from each of them in order to arrive at that combination and finally the final point is that we have expert testimony that the lack of bonding conditions such as a solvent and working examples in the prior are creates a situation where i do experimentation is required the board addressed are discusses you cannot rely on what one of skill in the art would have done if there's no evidence of it and what's notable about that case which has a lot of similarity clarities with this case is that in that case the court said that if it was within of the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the are to to enable him to make and use the claimed invention it would have been disclosed in the usual detail in the court in the opinion makes the case that hadn't practitioners are not loath to include examples when they know how to make and use something in that case was on a preliminary injunction and this court actually reverse the preliminary injunction and found as a matter of law that the underlying patent was not in a recent keir that if it was within the somewhere other than in a single sentence and do it in a non preferred  properly apologize if i'm not arguing that there isn't a reasonable expectation of success is not the case they have not pointed to reversible error in the board's decision but the references do the secondary reference provide guidance as to how a person of ordinary skill in the r would use polycarbonate your thing to bind a p t s d layer with a textile and then you look to the primary references either schmidt comes in and this notion that i do doesn't give examples do discloses that you can use silicone but it does say you can use polycarbonate your thing as an alternative and  silicone inside that doesn't make any sense a person or niska only or in the board found would be able to look to do and understand that and in fact do also talks about the fact that you would take a solvent and you would combine it with the adhesive and then you could spray the p t s d layer and the board found that a person born in a skin the art would have the record requisite recruit that skill to understand that and be able to do so with respect argument i just want to be clear with the bor what the office is arguing is that when it comes to enablement and obviousness a piece of prior are itself is not required when there's an obvious ne said four times in its decision that they looked at all of the exhibits that were provided that they considered both of the declarations and that based on the expressed disclosure in do they say mckay did  different materials to arrive at that combination on the enablement aspect i think the argument while i look later and do it mentions p t you have i'm sorry your honor but you our claim is actually directed to expanded polish touchable are obsolete which is a little bit different i think to discusses strands of p t s d that can be essentially wound together or form into a lot of swearing whereas p t s d i'm sorry you're arguing the distinction between expanded p t s d and p t s d that is one distinction with the do reference i agree with that on on the enablement argument at