bald to explain his patent is ok but the peak cap cannot rely on mr bowles to expand his patent beyond that which is disclose yet and i would argue that this case the inventor is also attempting to benefit from the explanation of his pad he's attempting to expand the scope of his patent to cover something that's not disclosed in his patent but in addition your honor i think there's another difference and that difference is that mr burbled patent talks about the teeth breaks and should speak fail of the part where as the claim limitation is explicit that it is force is being applied that don't break the part it would be the last cycle that would break apart and my recollection is that the patent owners expert dr that the last force being applied would be a dynamic force i believe that's what he said in the deposition to break the rot so  what's wrong with or why was it on reasonable for the board to understand in that manner in the sense that the embodiment with multiple applications of a force the  st few are are being applied in sort of breaking down the part weakening the part but not breaking and breaking the part and then you've got the final force applied that actually this ultra low cycle before you hit it once its load bearing if it breaks you're done but if it doesn't then you reload the force and you hit it again there's no disclosure there but secondly and i think mr mostyn voice was very clear on this when counsel asked him if global force causes collapse of nations of stresses that on the connecting rod he said no not fluctuations it causes a continuous is the only logical possibility because again consider your applying of course that is that is weakening the part if you just heard that a saying for you continue to weaken the part if you point you know all that's left is a force of three or something to get over the hump of finally breaking it and yet the dynamic force would be the breaker why why logically does it have to be stronger than ea and eighty four of the institution decision but it said quote titian or has not established adequately where the disclosure of verbal teaches applying an increased hydraulic force when the connecting r i'm done and i see i've reached my time so i will i will hold the rest of the bottle example of an ai where the p t has worked exactly as intended to officially dispose of an invalid packing claims proceeding there's nothing remarkable about the proceeding below other  sorry can you can you get to the merits rather than the general please sure sure st of all let me address the comment in response to judge chen question about whether there's testimony from from dr most of what about the fl to the hire for the logic that was discussed by the question from judge wallace and i think we mentioned this in our brief to this court we certainly mentioned in our brief to the p tab you know think of an example of a you bend a paper clip and you fatigue a paper clip it gets weaker and weaker and then that last dynamic force to actually separate the paper clip can be a very very small force smaller than the force is used to  and correct me if i didn't i thought she said that the board repeatedly said that the dynamic force has to be greater and the fatigue force no i don't i i don't believe that's correct and the institution decision the board an initially took issue and found that that now started not establish that in the pro ball drop friends that the magnitude of the final dynamic force did increase and that was an institution decision and we argued that in our initial petition in order to make sure we covered all the bases regardless of why claim construction might be adopted when the when the board adopted the construction force there was no longer a need for us to to establish that the dynamic force had to be higher in magnitude we argued that the petition in order to cover our bases put the board and the final written decision never found  board claimed construction there's no requirement of any magnitude the claims don't discuss any magnitude or relative magnitude of the forces i think was what ms that he was referring to in the institution decision which was fourteen and bravo it also talks about the quality of the fracture nineteen through twelve the field of the invention is to provide a properly fitting bearing c the abstract refers to quality control of the parts like column one line twenty to twenty nine it talks about when properly broken the two parts of the bearing house will fit back together exactly as they separated there's there's others most of his discussion seems to be the patent owner says oh no no no there isn't such a motivation and talks about the cooling and the length of time basically those two things those motivations the general motivations of ones that are not specific to grove all the particular in other words people skills they knew about the teams they knew that connecting rod would fracture more easily and that there was a lesson i mean one way to read all of this section of the board opinion is that the more adopted your understanding of why they're skilled artist and hypothetical one would have been motivated to combine these references in this manner that's the best way to get there i'm not i'm not saying it's great but is that the best way to understand what the board and what what how we can discern what the board's thinking is here i'm just trying to question judge then thank you i certainly agree that that's a fair way of reading that the board just you know there at the end of all they had already found invalidity and fo other grounds and they just neglected to recap and say that they were agreeing with our with our arguments but i think that's a fair reading of their final read decision but also in the context of of all the reasons for ground force well with respect to the motivation technologies case is a proper because once you combine bailiffs with the via you've got that dynamic force that added and you've got the client invention but but the bigger point is there's nothing in the course claim teaches exactly that and the construction of fatigue force which f f t agrees with and they tell this court they agree with required does not require that they never argued for any other construction below force repeatedly applied can serve as both a fatigue force and the dynamic force or do we have to accept that so that the because the combination certainly of the obviousness around we've got a separate distinct dynamic force however i think it is correct under the under the constructions are adopted by the p t which were proposed by find that correct in order to affirm but i think it is correct eleven point and i think it sounds like the panel has this already but on the bailiff is slow over issue and i did we didn't argue this we didn't point this out in the briefs but if you read the specification of the sort  nd you're going to have four cycles of petite so the argument that bro volves dynamic force is too slow and that takes too long to go from low magnitude for two separate force limitations in the claim but that simply doesn't make sense this is a tale of two different forces like apples and oranges and there's no teaching or suggestion to use two forces in any of the prior art not any and that's not taking it singly or combined there has to be a teaching or suggestion secondly there was no affirmative statement because there can't be any indication to combine bayless