mourning hers with respect to adding the board's conclusion of obviousness cannot stand because ah because out of the primary reference in this action fails to disclose in forcing new local constraint means to enforce a limit i am proposing is that in the context of the patent enforcing a limited means compelling compliance with that limit such that violations of that in particular finding solutions or adjustments to the layout that remove violations of the limit of the board and further no matter what enforcing a limit means it cannot  congress ignoring all violations of that limit as done by our preference the board found otherwise by determining the broadest reasonable construction of enforcing a constraint distance the board's finding that in forcing mean solving problems that include constraint distances and disregard for the plain language of the claims plainly not all solutions to equations that use constraint distances will result in compliance the it when looking at the claims the enforcement specified by the claims must result in a solution that provide new ordinance poor layout objects and that's the last that limitation so in the context of the claim you came in force on something where there is no violations because the result of an poor string must result in new now with respect to the specification the specification is consistent with the ordinary meaning of enforcing specification teaches that in forcing step occurs when locals constraint distance are violated and that is common for line requires updating the coordinate variables of the layout objects according to the solution it's a team from forcing so the last limitation requires solutions to be obtained from the forcing and if there's no violations there's no solutions because otherwise the lamp would just remain the same so the claims themselves do require that there are violations otherwise it would be noticed no updating of the co nanometers as a minimum limiting distance if those two components goes to twelve managers so they go from ten dollars to twelve dollars but they don't go to fifteen is fifteen managers being enforced a minimum distance a minimum and we submit that's not a reasonable contraction no reasonable person in the context of the all want to patent or in general we believe would say that if you go to twelve you can force a minimum constraint distance of fifteen man meters has been a force that a location where you only move things to twelve metres and that's the problem with the board construction and the problem with the board with both the construction the matter which was right on  equations that happen in use constrains wind up in forcing those contributors the actual solutions matter because if the solutions do not separate the components by the minimum required spacing refers to unsuccessful enforcement what is unsuccessful in forstmann if it's not removing violations are p x gives no response to that unsuccessful enforcement is what happens when it's certain you're only able to enforce that's the plain language of playing twat and there when you're unable to enforce you have to do something else under the board's construction as long as you use rescission on thirty two unless this court found that the board abused its discretion under any construction where enforcing can not in compas fail than forcing reversal is required not a minimum train has your given up position it's a maximum country well what they said their position petition is the space above segment has to be greater than or so i want to start with the plain language of clean one it describes constructing legal constraint distances and then in forcing said you look at the strength of we know the solutions are generated from the enforcing step because the next step in the claim refers to solutions of takin from the forcing step a claim one never mentions violations of new local constraint distances let alone limit the enforcing step to removing any violations inventor of course could have chosen to limit the enforcing step to moving violations if you did so with respect to the preferred environment i think you're to specification says the original layout is quote likely to violate some of the local constraint distances and quot this makes clear that not all new local constraint distances need to be violated by the all the new local constraint distances not just those violated by the original layer so that begs the question of the new local constraint distances that are not violated by the original layout or are complied with in the new layout in force commanders would respectfully if they were constructed was correct then the answer would be yes but obviously we disagree that that's the correct now in the final word decision and appendix twelve the board made the factual finding that is in forcing must cover the scenario where there is no violation argument for you which not all constraints are going to be violated and there nonetheless being enforced by and violated it but what about the flip side which is where they spend all of this time which is what happens when there is a lated at all so their construction is too narrow if it excludes the enforcement of of some google constraint distances that are not violated at all but with respect to the ones where the enforcement is unsuccessful we would respectfully submit challenge the promise that nothing is done what the figure to embody and does is it seeks to find a solution that complies with all of these constraints now it may be possible that it cannot find a solution to the compliance with all the constraints that does not mean it did nothing it sought a solution that complied with all of them and in some circumstances that in forcing step is unsuccessful in certain locations if when you have met him for you have unsuccessfully enforced and the reason i say that you is dependent claimed while it introduces an additional step it is a step that is performed after the enforcement steps it looks at the result of the enforcing step and says let's take some action on the locations where the enforcing step was underperforming so depend undo the performance of the force and step in quickly but in addition your honor their construction is too narrow because as i was just mentioned the board made the finding that there may not be any violations at all so the broadest reasonable you but it is instead proper to construe it as enforcing your divorcing something when there's no violations however you're also all the enforcing something if when there are allegations of a moving that the only issue that they raised below was based on the screen construction it was sufficient for the board to resolve the parties dispute to project their conclusion they waived any other argument that information could require anything that anybody don't want that i have there's no action taken and you're still of course right the i think the reason for that that i have a problem with that construction potentially being too narrow is in our line the board didn't address the question of whether those constraints  argument that should not be considered and if it is considered it's wrong for a host of reasons so i wouldn't alleges that the enforcing step does not occur if the layout doesn't have any violations to remove i when explicitly walked away from this proposed construction before the board so before the board much like here it was a bit of a moving target they offered three different variants for their enforcement construction removing violations was one attempting to remove violations was a nd and then like here in their reply they said you have to remove at least some violations at the oral hearing the board directly asked for their singular construction they chose remove violations they did not choose remove at least some politicians so this entire argument that's in their reply in the council is just addressing that argument is wave view it's also unsupported by the intrinsic cabinets not the basis of their argument is basically that this isn't forcing step comes with a big condition before you can do the enforcing step back to have created constraints you need to go make a determination about whether any of these constraints are violated the specification figure one figure to none of them talk about the enforcing step as being conditioned in any way in addition i want to search of the solution from the enforcing step couldn't be used to created a new set of constraints and use the figure to embody what it is going to do is come up with a new layout that complies with all those constraints even though they were by later it is going to change the layout to minimize the water like so i  that i want him waived any other of that so it was sufficient for the board to reject the construction but the board did go further and essentially adopted the district court's construction with one clarification now other than being not being limited to moving violations towards construction doesn't materially differ from my point despite that the curious celeb's of the construction is wrong because it's too narrow because it excludes the here is to combine but they don't ever explain how it could possibly help who i am if the words construction was too n alan does not it doesn't seek to enforce it doesn't tempt to force it doesn't partially a force it ignores it thus under any reasonable construction of what it means to win for something this one is moo can be said to reinforce we said it on both pages that's where we cited the dictionary so there's no waiver at issue here with respect to the experts if you are to reply on lebanon through agreed that that's the proper contraction our expert also testified i don't see how we can understand enforcing is not also removing violations and all the codes are on our reply eleven through twelve and although the board found the