of ordinary skill who did not already have knowledge of the claimed inventions would have consulted the cited publications and then combined them in the post matter the board's finding of obviousness lack substantial evidence that a person of ordinary skill who did not already have one of two when what the rejection has been put forth by the board is one of top combined with two combined with low now hit in main point with one of the differences between love and tuck is that love was directed to would have consulted the document like two as you know the time talking to were in very similar areas in your room pam talks about possible applications beyond under that both talking to are related to devices which are placed in the body but the nature of those devices is very different tuck is directed to a stand which is in contact with flowing blood to is the main focus into the central focus and to is on vascular graphs and to very specifically to this invention if you will is a multi layered structure and that multilayered structure is significantly different what what is a very hydrophobic surface and that hydrophobic surface important because that's what you want to contact with flowing but you don't want to hydrophilic surface in contact with flowing blood and what to does is he builds on that the multi layered structure of the internal portion  it's very important that they don't leave it there to contact flowing blood they make sure that they put another barrier layer politics or floor athletes inside it that's a very significant portion of two in this alternative body meant to the patent office does not mention completely in their briefing the board didn't address completely in their decision coming significantly cut doesn't actually provide that disclosure top mentions elasticity only in connection with a nother layer that can be placed on top of the polymer extent coding what they refer to as an overla there's only one section and top the very limited section of two paragraphs where they talk about elasticities only in connection with this over there and even their elasticities mentioned as being a relevant consideration another dispositive one in fact over layer and note not being at the spas of consideration the tough also doesn't disclose the importance of elasticity for its primary stand coding is revealed by an internal consistency in the board's argument as i mentioned dealing with the single palm once you make the combination talking to having selective e d f h f p from the thousands of choices disclosed into that's correct so as i was saying the alleged importance of elasticity merely provided that reason in support of a combination of references that had already sanctioned now again we believe that because of this lack of focus on the last sr the lack of substantial evidence on the issue someone would have gone beyond top they would have taken a look at top thousands of choices there and would have made some selection from within but even if one did go to two for some reason there is insubstantial evidence that someone would have come by tuck into in a way that would have produced the claimed suitable for blood contact thinks type of scenario the board gives two reasons for not being persuaded by this disclosure in two and by dr rico says testimony for what neither of these reasons are supported by substantial evidence first the board hypothesis there's no evidence or support for the hypothesis that it's ok to put the elastomer contact with blood in fact the evidence is directly to the contrary and that's because as i mentioned earlier to specifically states that that outer layer of elastomer is optional now think about that there's two points into contact between the elastomer the blood is undesirable and the elastomer is optional the only reasonable inference it can be drawn from that is that in the environment of flowing blood proceeding before the board is that right it was an enterprise reeves ammunition proceeding for the board yes and ok and so the petition used the prevailing parties have declined to defend the your honor we're here really just to help the court if the court has you know we thought it would be beneficial for the court to have both sides represented we think the court's decision is correct and we're here to answer any question you the office didn't request polymer and also says that the palmer has to have some level of biological stability in addition to bio compatibility properties talk also says that the palmer has to exhibit some mechanical propert specifically elasticity it must be resilient and flexible to withstand the force of the scaffolding lid expands and it must provide a predictable platform to allow for a drug delivery so that it either through pores or through erosion depending on what law also teaches that eighty five fifteen has desirable characteristics such as that optimal downs of elasticity and strength so it only makes sense for the person and skill in the art to use it because it is a off the shelf readily available commercially marketed without any unpredictability here either way either rationale supports the board's finding here of obviousness and not only that you also even have a specific teaching about a motivation to divine right top is uniform that it can lead to cracking and talk provides one solution to that problem and says well one thing you can do is you can make a more course but person a skill many are looking at that teaching and it also not only does it misunderstand column a but it also goes on and ignores the other embodiment which clearly says that the last two are can be in the lumen only air and can be in contact with blood there's a clear teaching into about other references or or collaborating with what other scientists the nature of drug delivery device as the nature of implantable devices is that it's a collaborative effort between materials scientists but also chemists and and physicians and cardiologist and other researchers in that area and they work together and you have all that information available to you and it is commonly known applications eventually do lead can be used for medical applications down the line the fact that they were initially found and in an industrial sending that doesn't mean that they can't be used for medical in a medical application and unpredictability in any of this this is a highly unpredictable are there are thousands of polymers disclosed in just talk there's no in the all the evidence of record is that you need a unique balance of properties to have something which has the requisite properties and a balance of privacy have the requisite properties notably releasing the drug at the appropriate rate there's no suggestion in love about anything about drug release it talks about flexibility it talks about use in industrial environment the drug release feature which is missing from a significant piece of the patent office mention that this is a textbook allegedly a textbook case of obviousness the pieces are all there it's a textbook case of hindsight one has to place themselves in the shoes of a person of order skill who didn't have the benefit of our pat each of us has been infected in the way with the knowledge of our patent claims and we're seeing the references in a different light we have to step back and put ourselves in the shoes of someone who orders skillern ask if someone had tuck in front of decision of the board should be