which it's undisputed the polity is not a thermoplastic and it's also undisputed that the state or jam could he she must be made of a thermoplastic in order to meet the claims so the issue before the board was whether it would have been obvious to i mean you there's no doubt the can oh she says you could use the same material or or both parts right it could be she does not say that with respect to the state or can it says with respect to sealing the state or core you could use either a factual objection to what the board concluded that's just a in unsubstantiated inference that because i can be she says you can sometimes use the same material it me plies that you can use the same material always including one that would be inappropriate for the camera that's absolutely correct or out and so what about commission su to that last point which is always has to have expert testimony in order to interpret a prior art reference no your honor the board doesn't always mean expert testimony but the the board needs evidence and there's no and nothing i parts and then you can use the same material for everything in some circumstances but it does not say that you can use thermoplastic for all parts in all circumstances and so what more should the expert if if he had any disputes with the with the points that he had made can i ask you i'm not sure and you can tell me if i'm wrong about this i'm not sure the board relied on this and i'm not sure that the petitioners relied on this thirty and thirty eight of commission might be taken to mean that a sympathetic president can be used for the whole thing and that would be thirty eight  will synthetic resident or fiber reinforced and i think your expert referred only to the medal and the fiber reinforced resin in a little table in his declaration said nothing about synthetic risk if there there is a reference to synthetic resin here but again it's to seal the state of oregon paragraph thirty and not to seal the or to create rather the state of ham and i don't think that there is a of a of cork sealing the outer core of the can itself is a different component and we think at the very least that a person skilled that we are reading these passages would understand  as we slid by analogy about making a wooden fireplace in a house that you wouldn't you wouldn't do that that's that's not a reasonable reading of this because a person skilled in the garden would know that in the very heat sensitive region of the state or can't you're not going to want to do to use a material that can soften  issue warranted or an outright personal i think it's now reversal because the circumstances that there's no substantial evidence currently supporting the board's conclusion and the petitioners ha i'm not questioning that for purposes of this question at the board history read the plastics treatise nevertheless your argument depends on looking at what's in zimmerman right and saying at least those corners that which look like fairly large squares are at those arching thick and i am asking i guess how do we know x understood your honor we we know that  not trying to scale very often what you have are things that normally would be extremely tiny and they're blown up for example to show you how our blood work so how do we know that that's not what's going on why i i think where we're arguing that it comes pretty close to that answer  for removing liquid from a reservoir and that the pump is going to be some submerged in higher reservoirs so i think we're talking about a sizable object that just on a scale alone would be unsuitable for detection molding good addition to that the pipe and i don't know that there's a critical functionality described in terms of the shape of the pipe but it is the shape of the pipes it's disclosed and with that shape you're going to have large areas between large gaps in the curves and  illicit is disclosed being essentially a miniaturised device for driving a disk drive and similar things and so the parts are inherently much smaller and you know looking at for example figure three that the thickness is particularly when you take into account the energy internal components that are embedded in the  sickest is this is fairly uniform throughout a plastic such as those disclose and can he she were well known to to be suitable for high temperature operations and that's exactly what the state or can we be exposed to in that area of the motor he didn't he why didn't you response to the patent owner's expert when he discussed the fact that that there are certain high temperature operations and then there are extreme  temperature operations and there are different things i don't know why he didn't respond to ron and what i can say is there is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding that the that can e g i like to just take a step back to answer your question order or you rely on that yes your honor the board relied on those teachings to have their lives thirty a paragraph thirty as well as the paragraph thirty eight i believe a certain lipper after thirty and conclude that there is a teaching at least a teaching or suggestion and can eat to use them a plastic residence for both the state or molded portion as well as the can now this is an obvious that in the board opinion temperature environments that you would experience and the state or those two teachings together are substantial evidence to support the board's finding and i would also venture to say that dr trucker's testimony on that point is fully supported by other eviden now if i may just add that doctors from his testimony is also supported by record evidence regarding the state of the art generally or the use of plastics to encapsulate various motor components and i was just one and we submit there is and that evidence includes the neil has to on references themselves as well as the plastics treatise all of which the board considered why wasn't it your burden to prove that as opposed to shifting the burden to the patent holder to show that it was your honor we disagree that there is any shift of any burden to the patent holder and we know that's what their argument is but if you look at what the or did the board considered the argument they were making which is essentially a argument against motivation to combine so in that sense it's no different than an argument about teaching away or an argument that the two references are incompatible or that they would render want to be essential teachings of a patent in operable these are all types of arguments that are made against motivation to combine and what k s are and what graham instruct them what this course is that this court has a struct in it said the board is to take all of that type of evidence of non obviousness and weigh it against the evidence of my colleagues are suggesting is simply drew from that discussion that there is a suggestion in that reference that you can choose different types of plastics to achieve different results in your injection molding process including thickness example of using injection molding were you not only get it in portions which you can see on the walls of the lower housing but you also get substantially relatively thicker portions in the form of the wedge shaped cut off sections and you can see a profile of one of those wedge shaped cut offset sections labeled as number forty and so the board relied on that evidence that it put the burden on the on the mother pattern or it wavy evidence it took the at the at an owner's evidence of face value but then weigh that against other evidence that was countervailing and this is a fine reference and in addition to the neil roberts were two of the things that relied on as well as the plastics treatise which has a teaching that is directly contrary to what their expert said which is that he said he wouldn't be able to use injection molding to form components of varying thicknesses so i think the border in the proper analysis did the proper weighing of the evidence and we believe the evidence does support that finding and notice that the water goes down much faster when the garbage disposal is ah yes that's my simming and it's working like a fan where the shape of the blade decides which way the air is in this case the liquid is going to it was just an example that it was well known in is well known and the are essentially that garber says was conventional garbage disposals can be utilized as palm's it certainly was not intended to in and of itself be a secondary reference presence it was just additional evidence to show that this is mainstream knowledge that you can use a garbage disposal as a pipe and i ate at the board relied on a hose that extent unless your authors have any additional questions thank you