let me just focus on what is and in my mind suppose it were the case that in your patent on a response you submitted a bunch of evidence and contentions that on their face were indisputable it missions that under your claim construction not their kids claim construction every element was shown or rendered obvious by the prior i fail to see in that circumstance how there is a due process or other problem take including a statutory problem it happens all at the time that  litigants lose their cases based on their own admissions so it seems to me that your argument for a procedural irregularity of consequence or even a lack of substantial  so show ng that you're explaining to us that what you said said in your patent owners response left a gap between what you said and the inferences that the board made to find obviousness and for that the other side needed evidence and they didn't i think in a grid they did not put on any evidence so it depends on that gap between what you said in your patent owners response and  findings that the board needed to make a gap that needed to be bridged by evidence can you explain what there was that the board was inferring from your evidence as opposed to just reading it on a plane on its face to say these print these various you know in internal structural process conditions you just conceded they were on sure i'm not sure if i agree with this position that quote it i guess it depends on the factual circumstances but in the situation where the petition like in this case is set up so that it's only based on a claim construction where there was no evidence submitted in support of the petition instead they replace three of the four claim elements three of the four process steps with compositional limitations and simply maps through attorney argument not supported by an expert declaration that the compositional limitations that it's reading in the claim to the prior art in that situation the fact in justifying that argument with a lack of enablement and when evidence of enablement that is when you're armed with the teachings in the specification and pat one skill in the art would be able to what did the board hat what didn't work have to bridge from what we said in rebutting their claim construction position to where the board had to end up in order to find these things out and that relates from really to our second ground leap to one skilled in the r would have been motivated to adjust not only the matrix structure so the board relies on the by id reference to show that i want one skinny are some researchers were looking at the fact that the matrix structure that is remember the five six pattern talks about manipulating not only the thermal kind of djibouti in the defect of the matrix but also remove carbon from the matrix for that purpose notion that that researchers knew that the microstructure changes would impact thermal thermal properties but there was no appreciation and there's no reference in the record that teaches that one  had of targeting not only the matrix the effectivity and getting chromium and carbon out of there in order to achieve that purpose but to super super think these specific types of carbines and that together you were able to achieve before an unknown is that you're referring to can i do more or say i'm looking at live pictures a twenty three twenty two seems to be where the board's in alice is but could you help me to tell me exactly within that where you're referring to right now sure look at fourteen twenty eight how in four find six through eight team this was this was what the board during the line of questioning during the one oral argument jumped leapt from is that you would be once filling  earlier patent that one would optimize the microstructure piece that together and leaped to the place where they say one skilled in the r would be able to appreciate that the combination of the matrix the combination of carbines in particular reaching the appeals the final decision because the evidence was not part of the initial petition the court has fairly uniformly held that the the board must consider the post petition evidence of evidence with well foreigners who know what i have at least don't remember seeing now why construed claim would have been obvious never even argued and you don't hear either played here your read brief is all about why it's all about the claim construction you never say if pet owner would come in with this large number of references to justify an element because clearly when you say that their claim limitations are enabled by the permit you're saying that the claim limitations are known in the prior art we thought that they really had to dig to find this seems like superior knowledge but the board accepted it as an admission of common knowledge i mean in a way we thought it was a blessing that in these missions but we never really at the time we honestly didn't believe that the word would go that far outside of the specification to find an element in that run of a scope and that was why we did not argue that if the claims were construed in this fashion based on all these admissions are of course on your just on the three limitations are taken out by the admissions regarding the just a composition and more or less ignore these these sort of middle middle pieces about what you are what you are manipulating to get there the board said well provisionally will institute have on that basis but the question is open then the board says no we actually now agree with the patent owner that those middle elements of the claimed having to do with what you were manipulating to get to the composition of the properties are actually important and then said even though you haven't presented any evidence on the prior art teaching those things they did and that's enough that's it's really kind of harmless they're really taking out through their claim of iterations why should we argue against this really why should we but we didn't think they would so we didn't we didn't emphasize that we didn't focus on it now you know  and really everything except for the compositional step and the ultimate thermal conductivity where was was and they found to be admitted as background prior art now the the compositions as far as what was left those were anticipating up and down but each the park references but i don't see where the board has lined up what the prior teaches with respect to elements two three and four so it might be helpful if you walk through that little bit  and not disclose elements two three and four in a literal sense the prior art disclose the compositions which were pointed out in the specifications be very narrow compositions which really almost one hundred percent of the claims in this narrow fashion according to the specifications and those compositions were all in the prior art and it was really really through the limitations of cells they're there couched in terms of selecting compositions which under this more narrow plane construction we're going to say that the prior in few of what was i guess knowing what was presented by the pack you know it or renders this claim the obvious and what i can't figure out and i think you several times use phrases like to a large extent inherited that's usually not enough for inherited well it was ordinary strictly based on the specification that was inherent but at the hearing it turned out that there was some limitation based on the record and it would have been obvious therefore to manipulate the microstructure manipulate impurities which were you know back from prior art turner to issue these micro structures it doesn't require apparently a very large his concentration on that argument to some extent we believe goes beyond the scope of the claims the the claims don't talk about large carbides in any degree however the claims do perform the steps in the v b end of the argument that that we had made was that the only way based on a specification you can perform a and b as by two these compositions because there is nothing else the argument that revolve it made was no you don't have to choose compositions you can get elements i understand but i think with there what i understood the players these days for to be going to is the idea that you do have something that has the have visitation that meets the limitation claim one and then you do some sort of manipulation at steps two and three to rivera and that's what allow them to arrive at the broader claim construction which was limited to nearly to the composition and then we went through it in our brief every the word did not do its own independent assessment of the prior art we looked at everything they said and was in that prior art they went almost sentence by sentence and picked out things that rove and i had said and relied on those in their final decision it was strictly a case which was based i mean larger than any other case of ever seen based on admissions  either knew or should have known that the court would consider its evidence an admissions and an apple opportunity to address it because undergrad versus john deere they're required to consider that prior art once it's in the record of level of ordinary skill so that the part followed well established law is there in the level of skill in the art and its decision should be upheld thank you i was an english teacher  i'd several things i want to address quickly if i have time the first is that we made no such admission that steps three through two three and four were in the air are there's a fundamental difference between admitting that once you're armed with the specification of a pattern and you're able to achieve those things using tools available in the art and in the place that the ad office enough was that it would have been obvious to do so that's no that was nowhere in any of the discussion bel crytek and the other thing i want to address is that your honor said that we shouldn't be surprised that the board is referencing these things certainly we were not surprised that the board referenced the evidence that we put into the record but we were surprised where the board patentability that could have been raised improperly drafted petition that was and that was what the p t o s counsel told the court in the magnum well tools case and we put that in there in the record and as you as you know the court and since rejected that position  decide on patentability theories never presented by the petitioner and not supported by the record evidence so we feel that this this is part of the growing pains of the i p r process is that the board had a broader view of what it was permitted to do could and couldn't do wedo they get a chance now to do it right because all they can do is address the grounds that were raised in the petition as we've demonstrated and which is understood actually and on appeal here is that that was improper it was based on