wire so that you can increase the packing of the wires within a coil if you use a square you can get more wire packed in the core al than you can in a round and that's an improvement because at the packing factor increases the performance of the coil crease as you can make smaller coils with the same power but then the pattern makes a very clear that ideal square wires are not good because of the sharp edges at the corners of the wire which would cut into the insulating of the wire and therefore would short circuit the coil so to specific sectional area ratios which is the ratio of the wire cross section to a circle or very specific circumferential ratios which is the border around the wire relative to a circle and then claims two and four recites arc shaped chamfered sections which was construed as having a constant radius throughout that c in claims two and four if you assume it's radius then there's it's missing at teaching that it's constant and that's an art that's a critical limitation of claim concluding that its radius is inconsistent through the through the pat be clear and you have any expert testimony that are in use prior art rock which means something other than radius we did not and it's not attorney argument and we're not trying to testify as an attorney we're just or excuse me as an expert it's just we're pointing out inconsistent teachings within that speck you don't need an expert the point to in con but i'd like to point out that here you have two japanese patents us prior you have they're made by japanese companies they both don't use the term radius yet they both define d as i am and they both use our parts we just find it hard to believe that those references are clear enough to say that our is is ra yeah there i think the problem is at the fork we find with the board's decision it is that they're there referencing motivation from musings ideal square wires and that's why i started out this presentation saying that you know ideal square wired does provide that more power and less base but our pattern actually away from that there was a problem with having a deal square w they wanted to back off the corners and not have them to wear so that around it that was to address that insulating problem of short circuits short circuit and when the board was relying on the motivation to compain that it fact are we said in our background more power less space so therefore we were making the point that there simply simply parroting back in hindsight what it what the motivation was for ideal square wires but that's not the motivation for the invention or if having rounded corners that was to prove that insulating problems and also succeeded also says that the motivation for their system was that they wanted to live in a twisting of the wire  those arguments really relate to pure factual issues and this court reviews the board's resolution of such issues under the deferential substantial evidence fandor and arguments that mr coddington was making even if they had the denser support which he admits they did not would not provide any basis for disturbing any of the board's findings because under substantial evidence even if there are to sloss it will you see as long as the board adopts one view which is supported by substantial evidence which the board did here there's no basis to disturb the board's findings now regarding c g to the extent it had no winners preserved any of the arguments the only remaining issue is whether a skilled artisan and would understand that's a key to this reference to our constitutes radius this is a factual issue and all the record evidence uniformly supports the board's finding this includes g took off as well as the undisputed and uncontroverted expert testimony from dr klopp who explained in detail well why artisans would understand that our means radius and now mr cotton can raise an argument about even if our means radius it's unclear to him whether the disclosure instance shows a constant value of the radius a couple of points on that first that argument is now preserved for spec as it except it was only m s now the same analysis and same outcome apply to herat the only issue that's been preserved there is whether are factual questions with respect to our parts and whether that means radius and the only evidence again that to mister under the substantial evidence standard this court is allowed to look at evidence that the tracks away from the board decision and that's what we're asking you to do  look at the inconsistent passages within the prior art and the conclusion here should be that not that there are two plausible interpretations it's that there is no  interpretation because you cannot come up with a definition that is consistent that can be used consistently throughout that entire suggestive at because of the one time it's referring to at the mansion a