it do not require that a monolayer in fact before i mean do not require that if i'm on a layer is formed that would prevent some of the oxidation catalyst to be directly accessible to be formed and not just that but that that monolayer prevents direct access of the reactance to the through the oxidation catalyst that is not consistent with any of the evidence that was developed during the prosecution during the i p r proceedings and it is also not consistent with the the well the the experts from both parties were asked to give their point of view on what that wording menace and  it has been our position throughout that this claim limitation should be read as a product by process claiming a taste and if it is not then the prior art references that have been dealing with prior art references if there is a requirement that you actually know that there is a and interrupted monolayer coated over the oxidation catalyst then it's our submission the prior art falls far short of that because all information that is provided to us by the prior art is the way by which it was made and so in that sense the board's position was entirely inconsistent because on the one hand they formulate a claim construction that requires that a layer actually be formed and not just that it be formed but that they prevent the reactance from directly contacting the oxidation catalyst but then in analyzing the prior art the order is happy to rely on just the description of the message by which the prior art materials were made so it  can be it can be both it can both be correct either we settle on a claim construction that allows us to analyze prior art based on the description of how these  preferred environment they fully rely on and soley rely on the description of how it was made when they argued that there was substantial evidence to support the finding good morning here on ars may please the court with respect to the position of whether or not american has standing that issue really is a potential rule regarding the need for this court to construe the limitation at an american patent owner american takes the position that none of the challenge claims are on patent on to the board's claim construction patent owner never argued that the court to adopt instead claims one seven eight fourteen through seventeen one thousand and thirty one are unpatentable based on styles and we noted this two times in our brief at pages twenty two and twenty three yet they never disputed this in their reply the so therefore under the vivid technologies case there is no need for this court to construe this limitation what the ford said in its decision on rehearing was in the final written decision we did not ignore witness testimony we discussed the testimony at some length we chose to credit th precise plane in an ordinary meaning of the language to the claim aided by the prosecution history and intrinsic evidence of the specification including the figures so they relied upon it all and  any poor shrug sure and support ten that is incorrect figure of one v is one pour and the description of the drawing states that figure one body is magnified drawing a what he said at appendix page six hundred paragraph twenty two twenty one and twenty two he says that a support is usually a high surface area in a granite material containing a complex pore structure the support includes all of the internal areas formed by each and every pore that these poor little like this and that's exactly what is shown in figure one day now they also point to some dr for autos testimony regarding the use of the word ferocity in the context of the absorber and there what he said was the absorbers still has to have the what they're doing and they're proof they point to the use of prosody with respect to the high surface area support which is just some poor is going up and down not all the way through and those are filled with the all of the passages that they cite and that they quote and their brief also i would like to turn now to hoekstra there in their reply at page fifteen they stayed board stated that the file wrapper was available to the public on the issue date of hoekstra november fifteenth one thousand and four so that was a finding of the board and their statement that their unsupported statement that the file history was unavailable to the members of the public has no support and does not contradict the finding of fact made by the board why why does not matter it wasn't incorporated into the issues patent it was available and became a published application as of the issue date of the patent because the application itself the prosecution history was publicly available now with respect to over the platinum group component and he used the phrase completely coated and in dr crocker's declaration he recognized that we were arguing that the absorber was completely coating i'd like to do this take a step back to address some of the arguments that they made about the construction of this client first with respect to product by process limitation a product by process limitation has no value with respect to the validity or invalidity of the patent it does not provide patentable distinction if the end product is the same then and it's a product claim and if it has a product by process want to take a shot at it if the product is the same the claimed product and the prior art product has the same physical characteristics and properties then why do we have this limitation but they they're planning let's say each sheet of paper is a model a layer of absorbent and i have a pet and if i take out a paper i can cover the whole table and it would be covered where what they're saying as if you put it right here pile it up in a corner of the high surface area that's sufficient but that does not satisfy the limitation that requires the catalytic component to be intimately and entirely coated by the absorbent so if you put it all over here whatever other catalyst is distributed on the represented by this table it is not covered by the model or so this poor woman taishan is not effective to show satisfaction of this limitation so therefore it can't be an acceptable definition of this and we pointed this out in our opening brief i'm sorry in our responding brief and they did not respond to that argument in their reply brief they ha pointed to any intrinsic evidence that says aha if you have enough to cover it you really don't have to cover it you can have a pile on the edge and that's sufficient there is no evidence supporting that platinum particles are entirely coated and that therefore in principle there shouldn't be any exposed atoms and i responded ok not a single one and he said if one uses a dictionary definition of entirely give that word it's ford unary meaning completely covered then their definition of a model layer is insufficient if you can pile it up on a side it has to be evenly spread out so there must be a model layer and that's what the court site and it's consistent with the dictionary definition and with respect to our experts testimony he said that there are two possibilities with respect to this claim term it can either be by diffusion and let's not lose track of what that means with the fusion the gas passes through it the fuse is throughly absorbent and to come through and with respect to talk to shima we relied upon that aspect with respect to hoekstra in a way and styles we relied upon the first configuration that is and compassed within that definition proposed definition so the fact that the board adopted only the first prong by diffusion does not mean that there is no evidence  that is problematic for folks fragments busy because their their evidence does not exclude that the prior art may contain explained that even if you form a monolayer you cannot be sure that there may not be an exposed oxidation catalyst adams as well because there could able to contact the oxidation catalyst director and that was consistent risk their testimony that when you form a mono lake here you can't be sure that there aren't any cracks d they have both work fifty's materials and they know that if you do the best you can in making your catalyst but you have no control over what happens on a molecular scale and in order to determine what has in fact happened you would have to conduct very sophisticated analyses and even then of course that requires a very large and large men which by implication means that you're looking at a very small sample of your catalyst and so even if you see in your analyses that the area that you're looking at shows a a an uninterrupted layer and there's no exposed latham madame's at all you don't know what it looks like two centimeters from where you are you happen to be doing your test so both these are people from the real world from practice and they know dr for older used the term idealized situation yes we can do to sculpt relations we can determine whether there's enough there to form a mono layer but that's an idealized world fact ation is correct and if the claim is limited to the embodiments where all of the platinum all of the oxidation catalyst atoms are coded and only accessible by the fusion we cannot do that we cannot ignore all the evidence that was developed saying these materials in real life will have cracks in this coding and will have atoms that are