methods including it was cheaper simpler a political fight why is the board on this record not entitled to to find you had the burden of persuasion you just haven't persuaded potentially something somebody might look at but they don't in fact involve a substrate that is either has been or is to be coated with asphalt which is what they claim  references well that that's what the board set up and that was his conclusion but i think it's reasoning underlying their conclusion reflects a legal errors and that's the problem and let me start with the claim construction it is right it does not require an asphalt quoted substrate and so i think i think we're right there but then it seems to ignore that and then go out and say well we're going to look at and what it rejected was the argument that the claim could search and the kind referred only to the already saturated material and said now it also refers to material before it has been saturated which i took t to a couple of places and for good for example at page of any stage thirteen of the board says there is no indication that asphalt treatment must be part of the process or that it must occur or that it must occur before an elf after applied to the be saturated with asphalt what does that tell you about what the role of a skilled artisan would be looking around to do to find techniques to do and and i think that art right understood and here are the problems with that first of all this is not limited to roofing material every day when every time the patent talks of our ass all this talk about in the context of roofing material this package covers roofing main fire reference so there's no indication even if all your fault even if you take the boards i face value there is that goes beyond roofing material it goes to building cover materials which are not at  other the other problem here is that it that's a point that maybe i'm just misremembering that that i don't remember that being a point specific contention before the court because it would have been hard for the board that it doesn't have to be coded with tabs or implied and so that's what the boards zeroed in on there was no discussion about what happens afterwards that was that simply wasn't a concern and i think the other statements in the board's opinion that the board did say it has to be as well saturated that's why last are teachers away how can that be correct in the light of the clean language and the specific reference in the specification of whether or not coated cover material which is beyond roofing the stuff on the sides of the building would presumably be covered was is there an issue made out of that because it seems to me  they say the board didn't interpret it to require asphalt saturation they did not do not know the perp or did too well have that's a question but they certainly argue that in their view the board claim interpretation and asphalt coated or saturated substances just carbon so that's the after coating what's what are we to understand when they said we agree with the petition or that claim one does not require an s fault code substrate was about that's what the briefing was about and with the board found is there's an obvious difference between paper and the secondary references and means it's got asphalt co evolved and what comes out of the process and goes under your shingles is tar paper it's got it has to have as well thought that's what the expert as the only expert testimony  skip through make some things here so you did it did you happen to remember was was owens corning argument about this claim construction made only in reply to your something that owens failed to argue to the board that none roofing building materials including materials that would never be saturated  again the board can screw the building and proving materials to be saturated before are saturated after they have not appealed complained about that point a lose on that was that's the first thing they construed as i said it's fifty percent of their pay and if that's wrong they should have said something more about that then i'm sorry if you said well i think the argument made is disputed the board's inclusion about what these materials were when the board wrote a fifty seven of a thing well the question is what's out of i don't understand that statement that on page thirty three where they say things by mixing up two separate points there's the question of before and after that we look at the board's decision that it may be very difficult to say that they were wrong in saying that last or talk