may please the court i'd like to first address the issue of the board's decision that the kusaka reference in question here anticipate because regardless of how the court considers the claim that's also disputed on the appeal the board's decision that usaca anticipates fundamentally misapprehend of this court's precedent in the kennametal versus ingersoll case and understood it to mean that it can import a limitation that was entirely missing from the reference into the reference to assume we don't agree with you on your combining argument ok so we think this is a combination just assume that you said nonetheless they erred in reading  currents coming out that's right that what you're arguing that the obvious i make sure i understand i've i've had a lot of fun playing with the technology in this case so i just want to make sure i understand you're talking about so you're saying even if we don't agree with you wanted the claim construction there's still a those three says the stationary currents shows the three phase stationary currents coming out on the right hand side and shows on the left hand side id demand an i q demand going in and also theta doing in from the bottom but  soc what is happening inside that well that's your combining argument but i just want to make sure i understood the other argument you started which i thought was a great place to start but you started with the argument that regardless of claim construction yes disclosure of that block we've learned as much from that figure about what's going on inside block eighteen a few socket as soccer says about it in its entirety we know the input even though we don't know what's going on in there the i think the problem for you your combining argument which is a different argument from whether i q d r comes out you could win an i q d r even if you don't combine it but the problem with your combining argument is even your expert made allegations of what we don't know what's going on it and he said it could be a number of different things and he gave an example but what nobody has suggested is that what's coming out the other side is only utilizing a portion or all of the id current or only utilizing a portion or all all of the examples suggest that there is for me some combination of both of them that is then popping out in the form of i you ivy and i w now three different colored fissions may be used but of them seems to include some portion of i q and i is there any evidence in this record that what comes out the right hand side could be only all of one or all of the other and not a combination of the two if i understand combination to include things with different coefficients in front of it yes your honor and the evidence the record evidence that we discussed and in our opening and reply is the walters reference the walters reference which the board explicitly founded not anticipate shows a series of blocks the input of which is i q id in feta the output of which are the three phase currents they're called i am ib and i see but the that arrangement therefore the record evidence shows that this black box of kusaka does not have to combine id in i q to get to the three phase currents which come out the right hand side so that addresses that combining is not necessary within a block eighteen even though id an i q might be inputs of bach and dr sonnie his testimony about what's going on inside a flock eighteen was simply that it reference in front of him and then at one twelve i said and can you just point out to me where into soccer we find that intermediate calculation that you discuss where you have the i q d r demand combined he says yes do you want me to question yes answer that would be implicit in figure one control box eighteen i asked and why do you say that and he answers well at a high level because that would be obvious of a person of ordinary skill me art knowing the technology of actor control so assignees testimony was very equivocal he says it's implied or it's obvious that you could do that with him block eighteen but there is no explicit disclosure anywhere cited to by broad ocean about what is happening within locke eighteen and therefore the board's conclusion with regard to walter's further augments that something can be happening inside block eighteen that is not a combining of i q and id as interpreted by the board and i hear y argument i find that to be somewhat confusing from a technical standpoint for me i think i'm not sure how to reconcile the board's finding about walter though it in order to your benefit certainly because i guess your own experts testimony and your position is right this case has been as far as i can tell combining doesn't occur when you have a question it's like i don't want the tangent signed data for example right these are examples and so what your expert was arguing is this example doesn't create a combination and that was your argument below and on appeal to us i get it  welters thing makes me very confused put that aside for a second your combining argument seemed to me was a combination is occurring here in large part because it's not just i d an i q being combine included the argument that kusaka did not expressly disclose what was happening within its clock that therefore was brought ocean was really advancing was an inherently argument and that you don't understand i understand all that but i guess what i'm what i'm trying to say is from a technical standpoint are you suggesting to me that it would be possible for i knew i v or i w to utilize only one of the current inputs i do iraq you and not the other so i don't see how you'd have three stationary phrase faces of reference coming out on the other side in less it had to take something from i q and something from id i don't see how you could from a technical standpoint nor did i see your expert ever suggest you could in fact i read his testimony to be quite correct from a technical matter not that i'm the judge of correctness or whatever but consistent at least with what i'm saying how about that well i guess it's because the fundamental question of what's happening within the blocks to soc eighteen is is this combination happening between i q and id or is it perhaps happening between v q and v d so that because that's what walter shows walter shows that they are creating the currently three phase stationary currents and a v q in v d not out of i q and id so that well it understand technically how that could happen but perhaps that's what they understood but i guess i disagree with the premise which you see in the figure of walter's is that the input to the left of the box is i q and i did so it has construction yes well i believe that it is in its construction the board of a document petition or proposed construction for i q b r demand term which was supported by the assignee declaration the word said that consumption and what is key here is that that donor never disputed this construction and it was late this is a current demand that includes q m t access there's it's far as i can tell there's just this one paragraph with no analysis i guess i want to understand something about what you said this claim construction me said oh the debate about clean construction free institution made perfectly clear that in adopting this claim construction of language the i q d r demand didn't have to be in a agreed about including your petition i have cited to dr sunny's declaration in our opening brief and i explained to each one to reduce an i q to your demand that is compensated for any torque contributions to apply the q axis current commanded the excess current demand to the motor the two must first be combined and then rotating frame that seems to contemplate that further staff lie thing they did to get it to the stationary frame of reference to dictate how the windings occur but it doesn't seem to me to say that the i q d our demand which continues to have that little are in there is something other that is something outside the rotating frame well it is within a sense within the rotating frame of reference it's in the conversion over from the rotating frame of reference to the stationary frame of reference and i go back to dr blank's declaration with his formula on the left hand side he has a stationary frame of reference we all agree with that i said that a for example is the stationary frame of reference it includes id  the rotating frame of reference minus i q sine data which is in the rotating frame of reference so at that instant when it's converting over you have a combination of th claim language says combining and i q are to me and the directions injection current demand to produce and i q all d r demand which is combine these two things and produce a rotating frame of that thing that is produced by the two is something that has those two things and i would add that there is evidence that under dr under dr blank there can never just be one that question was and i guess it does the combining question that's different from whether i q the r s produce i mean throughout all of your papers below you tell the board repeatedly what i q d r stands for i mean i think that you know you've done a wonderful job technically of helping the board and we understand this your briefs are very well written and very clear and you knew you explain that i q d r is a common term i'm reading from your brief a common term used that is what their expert says the claim construction provides that i see you do your demand is a current demand which has times consistently nobody has ever disputed that that little are means rotating but the board's claim construction there is a procedural problem here the board's claim construction thing appellants argued no it's not the sense that we're talking anticipation it must be different in the board agreed with them that is the ground upon which the word the night anticipation point that a sonny was making that you could simply convert it and he was using the phrase different way to skin the cat now with respect to their argument about dropping the the box from walters into box it doesn't fit and the reason that i say that is that the signals coming out of the right hand side of the box are voltages they admit a combination of the currents then when they have a problem if that was what was occurring in that box because the combination of the voltage yes and isn't it possible that that could be what's happening inside there i mean it would make sense to me to do it that way from efficiency standpoint no but isn't it possible that person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately in this image using the standard oh you can't go there in kennametal it was a chemical composition case where there were three forms of coding one of which was the p v c coating and there were five different metals and they were expressly disclosed and the argument that was made in kennametal was you don't have the anticipation because no individual in body image shows the p v c coating combined with  what i like to start playing dressing what isn't i to do your demand since i didn't address that in the first part and that's where the court went with mr meyer right away in our viewpoint the claim language on its face which requires the production stated and in fact that interpretation the claim is consistent with the only intrinsic evidence on the point there are two monuments in one of the eight nine five pattern in one of the three seven nine pattern which is or created by reference into the eight nine five  to some other blocks still in the rotating frame of reference and converts those eye currents into v voltages in the rotating frame of reference so the embodiment in the eight nine five pattern i q d r later on down the road it's been some out actually i think clearly a demand that stated in the rotating frame of reference so our understanding is that occurred to me and that includes q in the axis current demands a demand that includes those demands is still going to be something that's in the