intent to component though of the claim meaning if something was created and it did in fact block then dry growth that would be sufficient even if it wasn't created for that intent right i understand your question i decision the tojo tojo does not anticipate or under obvious is a direct conflict with the board's finding that told her she must plus tojo renders obvious let me go into what i mean directly but by that  the punch line is you can't take the particles without the whole box play what i mean the board analyzed tojo's surface hardness layer which is used to prevent tearing by hard  particles that flake off during manufacture of the battery the board found no anticipation because tojo teaches that to maintain conductivity through the separator you need to create quote open holes open holes which of course will not block soft lithium that's right growth and prevent a like five short the board also found the same missing claim element was not obvious when analyzing claims four and twelve which require the use of certain polyps the board concludes at age twenty two i do want to quote this thus even if an ordinary artist were to find it obvious to track one of the specific matrix materials independent claim idea of your interest just cross question i know that you're in a densely technical area and i don't want to derail you too much but i remember this case being all about motivation to combine and on page sixteen of your blue brief answer cheated first class and i say now we also dispute the presence of one element and that's a different issue you realize disputing the presence of the elements in the references is a different issue than disputing whether there's a motivation to combine and  associates can find it because i think you've waived that argument i don't recall a place in the brief where i seem to have named it but i could be mistaken i don't remember this case quite as well as i'm sure you do so yes i was looking to see but  layer so that's what the combination does and if you made that combination cord to the board would then have a surface or you would have a few would have a layer of toshiba which says it blocks down droids by virtue of us figured mushy gelatinous discuss increasing mechanical strength yes l g and the board in this case i believe applied a very superficial not technical approach to that issue we all know they're talking about two different kinds of mechanical str polymer and by extension the mushy film will have stability in toto the particles are harder todo teachers examples of how to make a hard layer even without particles based on how you form that layer it's two completely different mechanisms addressing different types of mechanical structures that are not interchangeable and finally if you add if you didn't just pull up codes of particles and sprinkle them into told machine you would not increase mechanical strength of any kind it's undisputed from our expert that the resulting polymer to quote the resulting column or would lack form but have written it like what blue book would send it and that's never been disputed or revive it so this was invention well that the board analyze this precise question i think it a twenty nine right yes so can you tell us what they did wrong i mean this is substantial evidence review here i think we did have experts from both sides so what in particular with respect to the a board's findings here on is just sufficient to overcome the deferential standard review sure they've noted only that both references say the words mechanical strength and to increase mechanical strength the power materials used may be modified to have a cross like structure you say that commonsense cannot pass by a missing element is common sense relevant on motivation to combine a couple of references   especially not obvious and you've got a deferential standard view the problem is they there you cannot mix and match them they propose conflicting solutions to different problems  toshiba that completely defeats toba she must go on a blocking d'andre so they are completely disparate references with conflicting solutions that do not go together and to put mechanical strength it doesn't say you can add a completely different materials and thereby increase mechanical strength only you can modify the polymer crossly that does not suggest you could then instead put a bunch of look at the table of contents their argument other than secondary considerations is just about reason to combine so any other arguments that soccer is trying to make today have been waived but but the gist of this argument is under the rubric of motivation to combine most of what your friend has said this morning deals with the lack of motivation that would have existed to combine these two references so i had to address them right so one of the arguments and so part makes is that mechanical strength has different meanings in one wouldn't understand mechanical strength in toba shima to be the same as mechanical strength attributed but that artemis not even matter though i mean if i was talking about increasing the mechanical strength of the chair i could do it by reinforcing the legs reinforcing the back reinforcing the seat those are all different ways to potentially increase the mechanical drain maybe they don't address the same element in terms of increasing it so i don't know i don't know that i mean under a substantial evidence review is it really for me to figure all that al though we think that under substantial evidence the board was absolutely correct because both references use the term mechanical strength and the distinction that they're trying to draw appears nowhere in the reasons says that adding in organic particles can also increase dimensional stability and there's no rebuttal to that so i'm happy to answer questions but  you that was quicker than i expected so the best place in our briefing is actually in the reply brief pages to the five that discusses the missing element of the problem is again that issue the one to get it because you have says he's very clear but what prospecting actually it's technically honest it changes the polymer throughout the structure to give a dimensional stability so this there are some increase in surface hardness yes but that really doesn't matter the point is still modifying the polymer versus adding a completely different material that's actually going to make your battery worse as it lowers conduct to me and then i want to address this that abraham paper if you listen to to show that if you had particles to some films whatever films he was looking had in his paper you can actually destroy the film make it fragile falls apart that was that evidence only an attorney argument if they tried to use use that paper there is no evidence in the record analyzing the actual electrolyte solution impregnated film of toby's shima and saying that you could have particles to that saying that it would then become stronger in any way the only evidence on that point is dr white saying that it would be like getting sand to wet gloop so that is clearly not increasing mechanical strength so that reason simply fails because there is no evidence on that reason so all including your out of the five a six pound should not be invalid based upon two references that are different in every way except for two magic words and it should not be invalid or the board's own analysis of the total reference shows that the combination of toby's femur should have open holes and wouldn't create the kind invention so deserve this court's close