fifteen we all agree that this is means post function claiming that the corresponding structure is one of three things too important to disappear one a simple blower fan which is item three five  obvious in this device which was known to overheat thermal plates because it was also cool the composition where it also helped that switching from a heated drum to a cool drum would not predict a particularly allow thermal develop what's important about that is the claim construction issue which we've raced specifically the claims allow a very wide rate allowing allowable cooling temperatures and that necessarily informs whether or not there is a reasonable expectation of success in adding these cooling elements wrongfully we contend the board used the prior art to restrict the broad claim language do you explain this to i'm i do i i think i don't know quite what to make of the sentence in there reconsideration decision that refers in the broadest reasonable interpretation interpretation somehow a central to its substantive analysis i thought that if you ask does the prior art show either of the to structure is that the stand behind this means for its function claim that it didn't find that the prior art would have made any of those obvious sensually because in the flex a graphic world there is no reason to think that when you had the heat both sides you would start cooling so can you explain what role that somewhat hide the our ice at its place in the analysis and who was critical and not odd i think i think the role is it was on rehearing that it was raised that and experience eight we said on the rehearing petition that your conclusion about a reasonable expectation of success not being found was wrong because you didn't appreciate the full scope of the cooling temperatures which were allowed bull by the claim language and they came back and said well we have considered it and they made an explicit whol that according to them the broadest reason with super taishan excludes temperatures by the heat and markets and it's that part that's wrong as a matter of law this court's review is do novo because there's only an issue of intrinsic other claim language in other claims specifically in claim one it talks about a temperature to parental between heating the top portion of the plate and the temperature of the bottom portion plates specifically twenty at least twenty f claimed seventeen has a comparable specific limitation in clean eighteen who's on it talks about heating the composition layer to a specific temperature temperature range between forty and two hundred that tells us that the broad claim language in two in fifteen is unrestricted if the inventor intended restricted they knew how to do so they did so in other claims most importantly the rightists recent construction cannot be detached from the specification the specification specific specifically at column twenty four and lines forty to forty three and it's a one six one we're describing the cooling means which is subject of dispute and it describes specifically that element sixteen is cooled by removal of heat from one portion of the outer surface with the flexible substrate being cooled to attempt sure lower in the composition layer so all that's required is that the cooling temperature be lower than the minute simply blowing air around it's not artificially cooling for those reasons the board was wrong in their judgment about the broadest reasonable interpretation and that again critically informed  about reasonable expectation of success specifically the martin's reference teaches us that sixty degrees c as a cooling temperature works just fine it doesn't cause distortion and allows appropriate thermal development expert example two is very explicit at a one one five in that regard and so in that example they have successful development occurring with a cooling temperature of about sixty degrees c which is less than secondly the board erred in our judgment in concluding that a simple fan blower three five six being pointed at a photosensitive element which was known to get two hots and distort was not an hot in particular the surface that you want to start melting so that you can take the material away to create the batter we don't see the evidence why it would have been obvious to start cooling in particular from the outside with a fan that partly want to stay hot so they're just that oh so the photosensitive element of was known to get too high and distort so first appears in the photo sensitive element as the substrate or the entire thing entire thing yes so the substrate with the composition layer on top and explicitly in modern it teaches that fact it was not hindsight believed that the entire thing could  subtree or the hardened composition layer in so the board failed to appreciate that the art taught that all through the substrate in the composition layer could be distorted and therefore is obvious and common sense to blow air at both both leps with it being as much so at the top as it is plus basically conduction principles would say if you truly are just worried about substrate you could blow air at the top only and through conduction the heat would move from the substrate to the composition layer so if there's not a worry about the syrian war both are still good common sense  intuitive in a system that relies on heating not to just the heating but to heat and also cool at the same time right so peterson teaches us that with multiple cycle the element builds up heat and so cycle to it's hotter overall in cycle one three the same and so it's it is common sense after the application of that intense heat to cool it so that it gets back to its more stable initial state and goes back through the thermal process so that the he build up is not too much for the more i believe the the answer to your question lies in  cool the drom with air filled drum and allow us to put more heat at the top where we need it in that arcs just like this art's he needed to be at the composition layer not the sub yes absolutely that is the state of that was the state in the progression of that art they had a heated drum it caused the same p t substrate problem and they found the solution of cooling the drum w applying aggressive heat at the top the same progression happened here and one only needed to look to leave it for that particular solution the other elements of legal error from our perspective is that the board absolutely required a reasonable expectation of success roof that's at eight twenty three reaffirmed at eight thirty nine respectfully that is not the law what does not mean your law says it's a helpful hints it's a good insight but when you turn absolute when you turn insights that are helpful into absolute rules that distorts the analysis here it was firmly develop those compositions was much higher the minimum was much higher specifically it was at ninety nine to one sixty six c that was the range higher narrow range in the flex  graphic art peterson teaches us at a seventy three that range is forty to two hundred c and so should be in there would be no concern for over cooling flux a graphic element is all you needed to do feeding it so that the development according to leave it at a forty nine would readily occur the last element of air in our view is the obvious to try and now the photographic layer and so you cannot take a statement that some polymers can be developed at forty degrees c and say that all polymers can be developed in forty degree c you cannot say that the temperatures in martin's are appropriate for some other polymer doesn't measure any kind of distortion of the film the person who measures it is potato and but asia when he uses a similar polymer under similar conditions to sixty degrees or sixty five on one side and a much higher temperature on the other he showed that without the treatment of this film you did get an acceptable distortion even at those temperatures now the fact of the matter is the essence of the argument below was that there was an expedient shown in the photographic film art for a cooling to the bottom of the surface and it would have been obvious to use that in the flex a graphic printing plate and we submit there are three fundamental differences between those technologies that answer incompatible with the printing plate development needs and it also answers the question that and demonstrates that the courts finding that success and compain in the two could not reasonably have been predicted in the supported by substantial evidence  opening brief and if you look at example fourteen there you can see that emotion layers three mil stick three thousand seven inch thick that's about the thickness of a human ear whereas in the photo polymer printing art those films are quite thick if et specifically says twice once in countering once a column for that his objective is to develop just the very top surface of that emotion because that's where the image is clearest and specifically not to develop the layer further down into it and the exact opposite is true with the photo polymer plate art you need to develop the food a poem or plate art to a substantial distance down into the later in order to get the relief structures that are required and indeed if you look at martin's you can see that some of those reliefs are his deep s thirty six mills thirty six thousand and seventy and finally the development process and chemistry is entirely different in that the photographic plate is developed entirely by a chemical reaction stimulated by heat whereas the photo polymer the development requires getting the pollen relayer hot keeping it hot keeping it hot through a substantial portion of its thickness and passing it on top that could happen because the top surface of the emulsion could be developed by heat alone applied only to the top surface where in contrast with the printing play it was uniformly thought that he on both sides get it hot and keep it hot so that it could go through those multiple processes of high pressure between those rules and the bottom line is that heating on both sides of the plate and then compressing repeatedly rollers but the problem of substrate fortune was recognized right in the box a graphical absolutely recognized and the art was repetitive and it was a problem that derived from it being too hot too hot at the surface that was next to something that had to be hot right that's exactly the problem so it's not so obvious how you're supposed to deal with that and that's really what the board fam and basically the printing art because of that looked elsewhere you can see in the peterson publications one thing he suggests is using photo polymers that have a low melting point he talked about using substrates and have a high nothing point but what's what's the intuition behind  y that it's not obvious that if something is too hot who it down because it being hot was essential to the development operation it had to be hot and steamy hot and they were so thick you couldn't just keep them from one side you had to heat them from both sides and so the question became that that is a necessary evil and we deal with it other ways we treat the film in order to enhance the stability and that was what a teacher taught in martin said yeah i used to teach so basically the essence of the board's opinion was rooted in recognizing let me going to let me ask the question this way even since at least peterson it's recognized that there can be warping if the substrate is too high and are you saying that there was no suggestion i mean that in a lusus most general possible way that one thing you might do in a flex a graphic art is to make it less hot there was always live with that and get stuff that was fans the heat better was there any suggestion make it less hot the record before us is that it was the latter live with it and get stuff that doesn't work the i think the argument is made that although martin's was teaching using those two different temperatures in order to cool the la into enhanced ability martin's doesn't say a word that all of these references used two different temperatures one at the bottom to try to get the layer up close to its melting point and a hotter one at the top in order to melt what's right there at the surface obviously being easier to melt what's at the surface when the whole layer below it is close that's the object and that was a necessary evil and while there were cooling means described for other types of operation for twenty five years before this invention there is nothing cited in this record that says oh let's just cool it even though we know it needs to be in the board found as facts that there was insufficient evidence words in there that must've been implicitly in there to make sense but i don't i think it's the key if you go back the one thing that's abundantly clear is that the opinion didn't change on rere they said we didn't  impose a temperature limitation originally and we're not changing anything in the opinion mess a conclusion at the end of rehearing nothing changed and when you look back at the original decision  surface of the harding plate which was absolutely counter intuitive that was the one thing he wanted to stay hot there was the cooling of the liquid under the surface of the drama that was blowing of the air into the cavity inside the drum and th the claim construction issue with an obvious argument which was that well the prior art tells you that success is guaranteed sixty degrees never mind what the polymers are never like what the the actual temperatures are to be success is guaranteed at sixty and the board dealt with that the same paragraph and said that's not true and in an obvious nonsense because you can look at but tasia that i've been mispronouncing regularly i'm you can look at the changes and see in his example where he took an untreated film and developed it at sixty degrees c the amount of distortion was on acceptably height was over his limit of point zero three percent so you can't say just success is guaranteed at that temperature and that was right in the same paragraph and so then they came back and said we're not changing anything the claimed that the applicant said he's not including temperature differential you stop there that's exactly what they held before in other words the embodiment where the drum was heated in the rower was seated in a was a difference in temperature is not covered by the claims it was distinguished within the patent specification itself from  school and i think that's probably the way to read that because it at least comports with the prior decision which was to cover these three three things but not two different heated  temperatures of cooling as allowed by the claim and that's why you reasonable expectation of success finding was wrong they came back and said no we're not wrong because we're happening the temperature's to something true that the relief needs to be for example twenty three mills or thirty six mills to get down to create the relief but multiple passes occur for example ten passes can occur in mert in therefore if you do division of out three point six mills of material needs to be removed about the same composition as the photographic film and so only that happened layer of the flex a graphic film just like