now the board correctly found that the process was novel an obvious but it erred when it held that the product of that and process would have been obvious and here instead of providing a reasoned decision with show would be combined to show this reson over plaiting limitation of claim seventeen and if if i could ask the court to look at age twenty three of our blue brief that has the figure of the health the device a claim seventeen and it shows it's annotated in color to show the plating on the upper surface and the bottom surface of the leads and on the bottom surface of the lead the green plating and on the top surface there's to portion is one is blue and that's for reflection and then there's the red and the red is the present over plating limitation of name seventeen that's at issue here and th think about and because the process which allowed that resin over plating wasn't in the prior art it was new the product of that process that had this resin over plating where the plate covered by the functions that osho was talking about the osho reference was talking about planing for two reasons increasing reflection and increasing the binding strength now if you look at this figure the blue includes a portion you haven't read in your picture and how i mean this is a substantial evidence question you've got testimony that someone would understand that reference as resulting in the entire thing being coded even hell some portion of and i go back to that figure on page fifty two of the blue brief which is what it's referring to and osho was very specific not only about the function reflection and bonding but was very specific about the location coding which might be coding the whole framework here has the following three benefits but that doesn't say we therefore will make the it doesn't serve as we're talking at the beginning it doesn't even serve the function of reflection and increase in size or binding strength because it's under resident wording to claim seventeen and in addition i want to know that if  the testimony in the record is that if you did code the entire surface top and bottom you would have problems and the testimony i'm talking about has to do with the used  the entire bottom surface of that lead you would get something that's called misalignment and osha oh look it hit sixty two of our blue green was very specific about this issue of alignment and that these red circles which we've shown around the solder bonding points you know she it sixty two of our blue brief line up with the substrate beloved figure ninety and the testimony is that if that entire bottom surface was plated he would have an alignment problem if you go to the top surface if that entire top surface was plated the the the what would happen would be something called peel off and peel off these when that resin coating on top kills off so not only would it not improve reflection and improve solder bonding strake it would actually harm it it would make it worse and they cannot work so we don't think fifty atm invention is because of something called noxious and the board addressed when it was finding that process was active on non obvious the notches where the resin actually goes through the not that's where in this you know fifty plus page decision the poor actually addressed the motivation to combine this is art six hundred and ninety seven with oh shit oh and i'm looking at the bottom of page forty eight plating the entire bleed for at least the upper surface and lower surface would result in a lead that meets the limitations of claim seventeen and my point is this next sentence figure four of osho illustrates a device similar to that described in parts it's nice that we are persuaded that sentence about the similarity is all there is in this decision about the alleged motivation to combine part six  that it would not be proper for us to realize through to interpret and thus we are persuaded the petitioner has demonstrated sentence to refer back to an adoption of the arguments at page thirty eight dollars i think that  that wasn't something they specifically addressed with respect to claim seventeen number one and number two even if even if they did as i previously explained the issue of reflection and issue  owed more in terms of an explanation as to why it's the suppose it similarities what they were and why they would mean a person going to school would be motivated number one and number two there were differences between them the board never addressed any differences between them and never really exposure to delay did there would be any expectation of success in doing so they didn't mention expectation of success at all and see i'm into my  process claims or hear about product claims and those particular aims of and drafted in such a manner that they are so broad that they cover an obvious combination of the prior art that many of these novel aspects of the process  which is you know really direct and claim very broadly clearly then what we have to look for is the actual claim elements that are required for claims seventeen not process waved or made up but the proceeding sentence one hundred dollars begins a person of ordinary skill in the art when viewing this reference would understand that osho teaches spock leading and then they may go on to make the argument from there so that's good their argument is premised on that point and i think that's confirmed by the fact that they don't give you a reason that assuming osho is fully plated that you wouldn't make this combination a technical reason that that would be impossible and not in canonic rejection i believe that's correct your honor but just to return to the point at least those are premised on precisely making about what osha teaches and how that would color someone looking to make a combination there's never a point where they sort of say even if we're wrong about them show and it teaches this then here's here's why you can't make this combination and it's not required for obviousness that the combination be the highest or best one of the problems i have with your argument even assuming that you're right which i'll tell you i don't think you're right and i don't think it was waived but even assuming you were right it's starts from the premise that you don't believe that the you believe the board is therefore able to skip over that as though there's an admission that it is satisfied no i don't i just want to make sure that i understood that we both agree the board is obligated to and they go through how on multiple points about the pleading that there would experts actually don't agree on anything and that discussion continues all the way over to and disadvantages to both sparkling and pleading the entire lead free in other words either one is an acceptable design choice for plating the lead to achieve these identify or if you think the fact that the board recognizes that there are conflicting expert testimony about advantages d or disadvantages should be morphed into a fact finding by the board that either of these are design choices reasonable choices i believe so you're  recognition of conflicting expert testimony equates to a fact finding it all of them are reasonable design choices well not just that but the fact that they specifically conclude that this conflicting ten testimony indicates to a reasonable conclusion that either one is a reasonable design option no your honor but i don't you can't judge that statement without the foregoing discussion over the a finding that the parties don't agree about what the advantages and disadvantages are in each introduce supporting testimony and that the order look through them and recognize that that means there are design decisions to be made that involve trade offs you can't have occurred to them or do that in the sentence that i just indicated so if i don't agree with you that this sentence indicates a fact finding by the board that there are d neither of these would amount to reasonable design choices and against the government no i do believe that's the only point that is in the government's favor your honor it's just one point why don't you tell through are saying we have this conflicting testimony that there are two ways to do this osho clearly discloses that one of the ways to accomplish getting plaiting in these desiring places is fully thus we are persuaded i like what do you think there are thus referred to if not the preceding sentence because it's hard for me to imagine that that's referred to everything we said above about the conflicting expert testimony i think it goes all the way back  includes that you're off because this entire part of the board's decision is about this ingle disputed limitation of claim seventeen and so they're saying this is in light of this entire discussion where we have laid out the testimony and the facts though only the last point of which is about figure four in the similarity of the devices we conclude based on all of that that petitioner has demonstrated that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of  me it seems to me that the culmination of the paragraph prior to the motivation combined paragraphs is really going to whether or not oh shit oh discloses plaiting versus only coding and then finally accepting possibly that it's only coding that last paragraph is the motivation to combine paragraphs that's the way i read the opinion is that in a reasonable rate i think that those questions are not as separate as your honor has just suggested that they bleed together somewhat because the feature being taken from our i mean from osho applied to art six and seven is about the plane and so it involves the question of why and how to do it which pulls in that discussion about is it fully played or not they're not one hundred percent separate questions i think particularly if you threw the board decision in that were indicated thank you even if every step of that process is not that when i look at the reasons for the board's discussion and the lack of argument on that specific point that needed to be rebutted and you can see have remember the discussion you and i had earlier about what if the they are similar devices that only the teaching from osho of plating the lead is being carried over so it's not a wholesale merging of these two very disparate designs it's just plating the lead and then otherwise you know the other limitations are all undisputed that goes to reasonable expectation of success as well as you know that it was well known in conventional the played all services as is the board was noted at  in it you wouldn't want to paint over the window with their reasons why you selectively localized plea in this or there's testimony with respect to that you keep in mind that what they're given this is a little there is no explanation there's to it but i've got to tell you a result in no different outcome for your client and so i don't know do i place and in fact if they give a little more explanation when i feel like i could tell exactly what their explanation would be they tell what they already wrote that maybe they didn't just the magic complicated and that it's unpredictable and it was especially important here with respect to motivation to combine an expectation of success and companies writes this for the board to give us more than what they did in turkey really any time