errors which which we've addressed in our briefs that is that the down below the board really erred in in circumventing the in our ability requirement of the law by holding that physical substitution is why couldn't you do what the board did well that's plain what i mean they've ignored they ignored the censors in batman and in essence picked just determining as based on some general knowledge of skill in the art without any evidence that a person of ordinary skill would know how to use a touch screen play that is really ground one that they refused to initiate the review of time so the confusion arose because samsung a lot it's ground one which was westerman only under one of three and it's ground through which was westerman to buy it lump them together in one have sensors in order to be a touch pad so the combination with back and they refer to it as a fleeting i think reference to back it was but it's the only reference to five and every time they referred to class they referred to the this claim chart or even in the discussion about did they ever allege that they would take for example a dom screen a piece of glass it's transparent from box and put that into westerman over the sensors and westerman another point important to understand that i mean to make is that in western men the examiner had already determined that westerman was not transparent and he made that determination twice in the prosecution of three or three so westerman fails to teach the transparent touch pad for positioning over a visual display that was a decision by the examiner at the expert and that's food and based on that decision the the board decided were not a problem for the board they're not properly before this court they were never that is a ground that was never instituted by the ground involving westerman included a combination with the back sensors they would not those are two separate questions in the same case one paragraph following this core also addressed in our ability as a separate issue so our point is it is an error of law for the board to have concluded that it need not in the western opinion then after it made that error then then it addressed this westerman and our position there again is that it really try ground three it's in each of the final decisions but the board stated for both our business grounds based on westerman along and in combination with by petition relies on westerman and that back to teach the outside the scope of what was set forth in the decision to institute and then the last half of that sense is even more error because then the board said in combination with back but just in relies on westerman and not by the teacher be examiner stated that the sensors that westerman was not transparent there's evidence in the prosecution that it had transistors are evidence was the transistors were not transparent sensors are ok they were and that was clearly there's no evidence they were not transparent that was not a transparent screen that's what the evidence shows the examiner believed it the board refused to go for with that so we're going to get the sensors from we're still trying to figure this out today based on the vague summation that they had in the end there in their chart that they turned to back to try to use those sensors they won't work it's inoperable and that's not disputed they get the sensors box sensors the board made that finding specifically at age fifty five fifty six and i have to apologise to the court i have been preparing with references to the seven sex case  from bach which was explicit and bach and applying that to western ns a multi touch screen and that truth traces through perfectly from the petition through institution to the final written decision in the petition your honor that we produced evidence in the form of mr ward's testimony which was credited that page forty two and seven different references that are cited in the paragraphs of his declaration that were lied on by the board of other references in the art at the time to make clear that transparent touch screens were common and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary  prior art that make clear that it was possible to make a screen transparent and those include for example a citation to clean slate now in another paragraph paragraphs seventy nine which is quoted at length this really kind of the summary paragraph it cites those references and the page numbers in another paragraph paragraph sixty eight includes the parent that equals that describe what those things do so clancy for example describes that you can make it up transparent substances includes a reference to a radium tin oxide which is a transparent conductor or a description in g n of making it of tr  the touchscreen so that you can see the display of love and so the argument with respect to whether or not transistors in particular were transparent at the time is really neither here or there again in the art so again and i didn't say it had i probably should have at the very outset that western does indeed suggest this now i take issue with my friend's characterization that the board was relying on western alone it was not it was relying on western in light of as it had in the institutions if you know in the institutions that it is true that the board did not institute on westerman alone but they said in connection with instituting the western in light of bach that petitioner recognizes westerman implicitly disclose as transparent multi touch screen and cements that western men in the view that the substrate does not need to be one hundred percent translucent to be transparent it's just has to be a valve plate that comes through there was a reference in a deposition actually the same page will tend except my friend for two in terms  one about the fact that the multi touch pad reprieve program oblique can move the keys around the keys are not affected on the multiplex ring but instead they move around which suggests that the light is coming up from the  need to show on to the surface and more specifically there is a disclosure it claimed ten which is column sixty two lines three to four of fabricating the multi t service on the display l c d display underneath now that language of claim ten was not something that the examiner considered when the examiner was looking at western that's one of the reasons that the conservative the board was being conservative the certainly suggests one of the arguments that the patent is making is that western men somehow teachers away from transparency and you know to consider teaching way you have to look at what is being barbara what's the new learning that's being applied so the learning being applied to question is transparency there's nothing in western that teaches away from transparency in fact it there are many reasons and the board  cited compact ms flexibility isn't quite as of in a rush to run that next transparency implosion well specifically it's the fact that you have the light shining up through the multi track surface so that you can move the keys around through now whether that was enough light to qualify as transparent or not you know it's silent as to that that's why we propose combined because the public know his function of patton's it must be clear and unmistakable that there has been a disavowal and the perspective is that of a reasonable competitor a third person looking at this what happened it was in the first instance the examiner rejected it because it was not supported by the original disclosure and then they came back and try different approaches ultimately as is acknowledged in the reply br other references that are indistinguishable from harrison so for example at this is at a forty sixty to one of the references they've used it says the direction of the page that language which says nothing about game speed or acceleration is indistinguishable from the disclosure of harrison which refers to the same gesture as a fleck so they did not stand the definition of a flag that game speed or accelerates again once the examiner rejected that those words game speed or accelerate or increase we did a search of the entire exhibit two westerman you know what it sensors may have done i mean a lot of that discussion is again all claimed while i'm sorry ground one that was not under review and we're spending a lot of time by dressing up a ground that the board sided  to prove where or how this combination would work the course clearly say that a sensors are very important for us to come up to you know in question we still don't know today what their combination is if they're saying they would come from somewhere else but we don't know where they're from