just as a housekeeping matter as i raised with your friend is independent claim one a law student of or representative no in the sense that the claims that are at issue in the problem with that is there is no there's no problem with that but the the particular elements like the remoteness and all of that those are unique to the claim made in the groove the battery came into the case when they ran and when empty i ran into trouble in front of the board and they their expert came back and tried to backfill that testimony by adding the requirement of a battery that's nowhere make and the board didn't find that it was improper argument they just ignored correct why did you send it back to have the board consider that issue well because i think st of all again it wasn't asserted in the petition and i mean if they have to add a battery at the at the end of the argument because they realize that what they did assert wasn't functional as they asserted it it sounds like that's b s and that what they asserted was not o ous i mean we are talking about what a person of ordinary skill in the art would mean would find obvious and if they've got to start adding stuff at the end how is that obvious to keep having to properly before the board they have discretion not to consider it and the book this is these are not a novice board they exercise their they would exercise their discretion to consider it or not as they saw fit so i just don't i don't see how the addition of a battery at the at the th hour to try to salvage the functionality argument of the art that they asserted is somehow worthy their argument and claim made is forced to rely on expert testimony basically to to declarations discussing the hypothetical hypothetical and they would basically require that the device be rendered inoperable almost broken in order to keep keep the head unit apart from the from the spring so the board and all of these issues their argument is their argument is basically that they're experts at x and the board erred by not following what their experts said but i'm all of these issues that are before the court our experts said the opposite or the evidence was such that the board with its eyes and ears and brain could see that in such a position something wouldn't function or there was some sort of contradictory evidence to everything that they were talking about and so the not in the same area some of it predates smartphones one of it is like this huge machine with spools and wires and none of the combinations were obvious to come combine it was it was not a difficult decision for this board and most of them wouldn't even function for their intended purpose and substantial evidence backs every decision that these that these their combinations would not function and strong indeed non obviousness and so our position is that this board on every one of these claims there is evidence in the record to back the board's decision the board's decision makes sense and the the board was not required to accept experts expert's advice and our view is that substantial evidence backs all of these all of these opinions and if you just listen to these machinations that they have to go through to