process it needs to be folded over and then in another point in the process the sides need to be attached we end up with some it looks like a training hand or just a pair of underwear and but before you attach decide you want to to give you a partition to make sure that you keep things separate and so we have this situation where i don't understand how that separate separation members  leave or actually separating them but the whole point is that it's dealing with the elastic right at separating the elastic and if they fail then the elastic collapses that's a totally different animal than separating them the italian reference yes the whole point was to make sure that the maintains alignment of the front over the back of the diaper and the board did not find that the yellow holding room to form that particular function my understanding of the herman reference with the golden problem there they don't start the only thing that is keeping those side panels and green separate are the holding rods and that's exactly what we have in the one eighty seven pound why it's not necessarily so when i can see they see a gap between the actual yellow showing the space between the yellow rod in the side panels and figure thirteen fourteen fifteen but showing no deference space at all in figure sixteen i don't know how we describe sixteen but i don't believe it's an error in thirteen because he says it's a s c draw it's a cross section it's the magic selves not supposed to be what's the reality of what's happening which we really see here thirteen if we conclude that the yellow separation alignment vote and i was doing that the examiner argued separation so so there's no deference here on separation the the the board lift that and on alignment we believe that that and that's it there's nothing else that's keeping this exactly where it should be so so we believe no differences do because they missed the separation argument completely and on the line when they were focused on figure three that's what they talked about and they were not focused on figure fo orientation during the folding process the sealing process and the timing process and the only thing that can give you the orientation during those three processes the only things that are touching this training hand are the  then talks about keeping the pan in the proper orientation for the folding the ceiling of the joining and then the cutting and that that's the holding right and the breakfast together just so i understand your proposed combination would be not to remove anything from the time reference it would be to keep it as it is but then on top of that insert herman first being that substantial evidence does support the board's finding that that the examiner sceptically the reason for combining the family comic and her references was based on the actually incorrect assertion as well as there was no rational underpinning second the board finding in that regard was dispositive of its alternate conclusion absent any other reason to make that combination and third because the substitute reasons that helen has raised on appeal for combining the references were never raised to the examiner the board in this instance could not have erred by failing to consider those reasons now i want to address that this confidence of the two concepts that mr george raise that i want to address one is other rationales for reasons for combining those references that support erred in failing to consider and then instance none of those reasons and as we asserted in our read brief those reasons were raised to the examiner discretion to do that they don't it's got the wires that they actually do it and in this instance what they're asserting is that the board on their own should have considered these other six rationales for making those combinations even though they had never been presented to the  they were improperly in front of the board the board has the discretion to come up with a new ground a rejection but no obligations if they have no obligation to do so and i know that we also pointed out in our brief the three recent cases that were in front of th in those instances said that the request to repel lead there could support the examiners rejection on any grounds that were supported by the record and in those specific or the hearing the reason get emitting at that point that the arguments they're raising now were not the ones they raised to the examiner that we still even question whether those arguments were even raised to the board if you look at the the arguments in front of the board conveyor to to do that and they used conveyors to hold the entire side panel and they only leave a small port part of the wings coming off the conveyor is what prevents contraction in from a poet the conveyor  need it's already doing the separation there is no need for anything else there to help that out when you compare that to figure three of the one nine hundred eighty you see what's going on with the side panels and in that case one of the seven the side panels contrary patent those separations members have to be there to stop of those fasteners from inadvertently contact either each other or the back side of the other side panel because they're going to get stuck are on the different sides of the sides and so and so in that in this instance there was in this instance if the separation members weren't there the hook material from the one side would bump into the backside of the other side it would stick to it and you wouldn't be able to get it done and fold around later so the purpose of the separation numbers are to just keep the status quo and so we can get the side panels further downstream i'm going to be obvious to do that and when you look at this relative to the prior art where we have in front of us we have herman and we have family kind of and both of those cases they're based on the premise of controlling the entire product so herman has a gripping members all the way out there at the edges it's holding everything so that