to limitations st limitation requires local process modifications that change initial constrains the claims on their face require an initial  computation of local process modification that change those constraints the board found the local process modification limitation was met both based on code the supposed teaching of changes to initially design rules five will fire up the board stated that the changes to initial design was five o five that result from running simulations on layout five  both ph twenty nine and thirty five of its response brief that the poor never plan that changes the design rules five of meet the local process modification limitation of what the board found shouldn't be in  the board stated three separate times that it changes to initial design rules five o five and nothing else met the local process modifications limitation those findings of the board or stated on page twenty two dollars of its decision on page twenty six dollars of its decision that r p acts repeatedly and consistently took the position that codis changes to design rules five o five up teach the claimed local process modifications  unsupported by substantial evidence the board's finding of r b s this cannot stand this court reviews decisions that me evidence relied on by the board not the parties arguments below that codis changes to initial constraints meet the claim limitation changes to initial constrains that is not an argument that is an attempt to confuse the issue or p x never initial constraints with respect to limitation any as our p x argument is just based on a repetition of the claim language and not on a bible theory based on the disclosures in cooties itself there is no with respect to the nd limitation new local constraint distances that limit limitation requires constructing new local constraint distances by combining local process modifications with now there is a lot of confusion in the party's briefing over the difference between distance and it can shrink just there shouldn't be a dispute here a distance is how far apart two objects on a layout are place a constraint distance is a limit specifying how far apart objects must be space now with that understanding the board's finding a body and this cannot stand the board found that code  is not supported by substantial evidence the board often relied on figure six the board stated and this is on page thirty four dollars to thirty five dollars of its decision figure six a cody provides another example of a constrain distance because it illustrates increasing the distance between two features that's just a mis read in the code code he does not show constraint distances do you want in cody is describing cod modifications are additional distances and he offers two sides that's not an explanation that's not an inference that's a not a statement that's not supported by the two cites he provided he provided one cite to the portion i just read which disclosed discusses distances but not constrained distances and the only other thing he relied on for that statement was the background and the background we all agree does not disclose in local contro he simply stated stated that cody described them as constraint distances when on a space cody or person no such description so in this case reasonable inference is cannot be used to substitute for an express disclosure because their expert did not purport to make inferences all he said was expressly discussed and lastly with respect to clean fourteen the board found that it would have been a matter of design choice to substitute cody's optimization with here risk that procedure alternatives is the old one to pat the pattinson and it's not the background it's where the inventors of the old want to patent explain that part of their inventive contribution was realising that optimization requirement and the result of calculating the local layout required to show at the top right to fit your six which is that the space between the two objects has increased only disclosure in code for how you increase how you get the spacing between objects is again in the background of the that the local process modification is disclosed the suggestion early this morning with the court or the board adopted a different finding that it changes to the initial design rules respectfully i think that i'm a reasonable reading of the filing decision at ph throughout the appendix three hundred and forty five in his declaration which is correct when sixty six the board identifies arguments in walking through the various parties positions in the facts and law supporting them i page fifteen that identified argument as in the change to the initial that instances did refer to change it to the design rule and that is not entirely correct in the sense that what was changed was a construct however the rules imposed the constraints and so they have to go hand in hand it's limitation he appendix thirty three and it really looks at figure six it's making clear that what's happening is you have an initial distance and then you're adding to that initial distance again and the only way that that initial distance was set in code is by an initial constraint distance and s that would exist such as a fixed position construct which would literally mean for other than increasing the distance between two components setting an x or y parameter for each of those and fixing them on that board our experts are agreed that that theoretically you could do that but when asked isn't that what a person skill would actually have interpreted code disclosing would have done to make the optimisation try to fix it so that's in one when no one would have done it it's a completely speculative interpretation of or for theoretical an implementation that technically exists but no reasonable person reading toady would buy that that's what is being disclosed indeed their own expert conceded that nothing about six point constraints for area constraints the other issue that they raise on appeal below never argues that coding actually discloses area constraints they kind of looked at together with fixed point constraints and said these are things that were known and therefore person skill me i would bring regardless of a potential waiver and the fact that there's no no expert testimony on that on it it's a red herring because area it invited to which areas referenced as a potential constraint there's one embodied in that call five lines th limitation on the size of the chip saying optimize it as much as you want which d again the optimization everyone agrees requires moving objects further apart but we're going to set a limit on the side of the chicken they want to buy when it's you can't go larger than that so it doesn't limit how much you can move all the objects but there is nothing in the record to explain how limiting the size of the chip or accomplish the optimization that showing a figure six to result a local problem area trying to figure said if local problem areas are resulting in by moving farther apart and there's nothing in the obvious to modify code to use if you respect rather than optimization algorithm and maybe two critical fact finding that special event ports and which area affirmative the final st the board found that it would have been well known in the art security six algorithms or well known in the art there is no real dispute on that any longer page twenty two of the reply brief they agree there as well known in the art i am seems to be taking the position that while they were well known in the art of integrated circuits the layout using computers it was unknown to use them in the specific context of playing fourteen which requires using these new looking strength is just it's a chicken and the egg where because you came allegedly came up with a novel idea of it was notable for what we didn't hear the board express they found that the limitation e d the local process pontification was met by changes to initial design in code there were no such changes and since there is no dispute that code does not change initial design rules five o'clock the only dispute with respect to limitation to me is what did the board found and the board tells us what they found over and over again they say on page twenty two the changes to initial design rules five thousand and fifty that result from running simulations on my  was five o'clock on page thirty two of their decision they said as we previously explained when addressing how cody teaches the claim local process modifications cody discloses making changes to initial design rules file and they made that finding because our p x repeatedly and consistently took the position below that codis changes to design rules five  five meet the local process modifications and that's not my language and repeatedly and consistently that's the board's on page twenty six dollars of it's the says now i want to appeal our p x argues that's not what the board found as that is certainly with the board plan this court cannot affirm to this court reviews the analysis provided by the board and the evidence were a lot for and what you heard on appeal the only alternative the reason which could only get them remember they argued that the initial constraints in quality or the initial constraints of the claim the important thing there is coding doesn't use the column five and forty five would of i mean com pipeline thirty six to forty in that combine meant kota discloses a pre determined target processed latitude regardless of area so process and with respect to the argument that well we didn't raise area constraints below and it's been we that's just not true if you look at all our response brief or sorry a