and then move on to ten just to frankly those are very nice job of summarizing most of the items regarding claim ten but we'd like to add a few of those to that directly or tangent of the p t s determination  scription specifically names parts rails and trucks that never touch each other and they move in relation to each other and the board acknowledges this in their claim construction but for some reason interpret it much more narrowly essentially importing a new limitation into the claim it will start with claim for a couple that it be in contact with and that they wanted to know where it's in contact with and it goes against the claims construction and in truth what this invention would be about i guess maybe one way or understanding or are you here with that let's assume for the moment of our corps farm to do the st and nd track numbers which i think everybody agrees is not the case probably importantly they're located at the end but they're also very moveable so if you look above to a lab then the tracks would be the yellow portions st and nd track members there there's an answer your question person nd track numbers and that actually becomes very important because there was an in depth discussion on the shape of that cross section and whether that would include a c shaped so i do believe that the board understood we were firming to petition to i cannot point you to that at this moment but i do know that we had an in depth discussion on the shape of the tracks that the board was well aware that it was this cross section part if the tracks were in fact within the header and that these rails stayed on it in fact the force also commented on the idea that the stops were attached to the rails and they had a problem with that with claim six also that the stops were on the rails and that we had not explained how to attach them to the trucks and so i do think that they understood the lining up of that track members well rather and then it shows an annotated version of figure six where you identif eye and i understand your concern and i believe that we refer to those as the real numbers but it's our to be computers track members clearly the stops are at the ends then on that are touched there too but board would not apply is that we failed to show where the stops would be on the track members and so in fact it would take away the board's reason for saying that this was them and that that then you never made that extra explanation of ok we're giving away from what our an arrow so i reckon fifty two let me be a little more clear about our theory is the  that's four or five planes and i think that the board and this court can be in full agreement that the rails the trucks and the stops or there and that  very very broad claim limitation one of the reasons that we give is that it's a functional limitation and should not be given way but the parts are there the structural elements are there and they've been pointed out perhaps erroneous lead by mr for want to move but clearly the court understood where we had tracks where we had rails and where the stops were couple does not require that they ever come into contact with each other the pieces are there they do have the desired effect so there are several reasons why this court could over turn that which would be one the functional limitation should not apply the couple and there's a that it would be very obvious to make this adaptation and that these things are not calcified hearts or extreme chemistry here we're dealing with is simple mechanical parts that have been around for a one hundred years and so it would be obvious for some of the take stops and to arrange them on rails or tracks in these configurations if you would that those skilled in these ares can put these pieces together after one hundred years almost as easy as maybe someone on the street put together lego pieces this is not challenging and so i understand your your concern in the initial hire for cation i do submit that the port understood the track and it was  good morning runners i'm ryan fountain i represent shower enclosures america as a house he came at her and initially i would say the representative claims are one and twelve examiner found two distinct areas of patentability and i think in twelve cover those other two independent claims make the distinction between panels and doors but for our purposes we have focus over and over again on header tracks rail members track members and unfortunately what i just not correct that is the primary thing the primary area of law d is misunderstanding the level of ordinary skill in the art to terminations but also in the prior art analysis of self consistency is absolutely required you can't call something a heter track and then also call it a track member because you are then referring to the same components as two different things and we detail that at length in here but i think that distinction with regard to confusing elements was shown of discussion just a moment ago with regard to claim six is to as well if we look at appendix page ninety yes the board said we think you put your stops here but not here but even if it turns out you can twist this meaning you still did not explain sufficiently how the interlock downstairs there stops at the end of a rail t there and the explanation of why it would be obviously to do that or anticipation to that does not show up there and that's at a ninety now getting back to los all fundamental flaw fundamental reason i'm standing here today is the board misunderstood that the level of technology does not necessarily mean the level of ordinary skill in the art the level of technology talks about in effect the level of testimony i considered the level of skill even of the inventor but when asked what that level of skill was he didn't know so he proved he could not have done what he said he did there's nothing in the evidence to show what the level of that skill is and without that everything counterweight is not confrontation you don't want me to put on next word as a counterweight would be where we did not put on that we did not know and the reason we didn't do it because that would be mere counterweight to simply say the level of skills a high school grad or it down for what the magic thing that needed to be done that wasn't done their experts were told by their attorneys such factors they had to consider ok go out and determin have but they didn't that's why don't you put your record in the sand because what you really want is the truth you don't want me to tell the board home you can go here tell your expert one tell the truth i'm telling you if i simply put an expert on and you had their expert versus our expert the board would simply have to choose between the two you know but what you really want to know is what's the basis of the expert's opinion in one of these experts conduct the survey or did he not so  reasonable facts he had no facts in which to form either a lay opinion or an expert opinion his opinion is that technology is x ok cole but he could have just as easily come on board and said i'm  stuff without something there the board can't pass go there is no exception in thirty five u s c section one thousand one hundred and twenty four simple technology everything has to be viewed through the eyes of someone of ordinary d skill we don't have that here because we don't know who that is therefore having failed that burden of proof that critical foundational burden of proof the board should not have gone further with fine they did but they went onto a file written cision based upon no evidence of the level of ordinary skill in the art they set in the opinion the prior art can show it but that's no different the saying the sky dead it is a granny is it black what is the prior art showing they did or to choice to us and under the administrative procedure act they're required to articulate their findings and apply those findings reasonably to the issues of law what they said their fundamental mistake was technology is anough to determine the level of ordinary skill in the art and that i submit is an error of of law technology is not book people know technology is the creation of inventors creation of an abundance of people that's tells you nothing about the ordinary person in the scope of order sco if a lesser on the other question is us this time i would refer a really reserve the thank you your honor and obviously you've caught me off guard with your question before but i think i understand now where the confusion arises komi oh refers to the items that you referred to  track or the st and nd tracks of the claims we need to have the transition over and read move your headlights on council i let you answer that question ok them so wrap it up so i'm going to wrap it up and evidence of all the experts that it would be very easy to adopt these things and i think that claim ten a is in one or more is such an item of law that it should be