you see this in the oral hearing consistently it's express or inherent disclosure and the board found in footnote two of its opinion at appendix twenty seven it found there is no inherent disclosure here so the determining optimal placement limitation is not necessarily disclosed obviously within the super reference which is the sole anticipatory reference so that leaves us with trust disclosure and if you look at the sewer reference there's simply no way to and power you know and placement that can result in improved efficiency and in particular reduced heat which is part of what you're with the problem here is about where you locate them and you can do that  algorithm that carefully articulate regardless of where the hardback rows are placed almost you know there are there is placed in the various regions right but then what this is all about is maximizing performance by then locating the s no means of doing so that that seems to me that it would fit anywhere in the inherent camp that you're under i think that's if anywhere and i don't think it even would be unfair in this case but i do think that that's if anywhere and in fact if you look you have to look up to the previous claim limitation which says that you select atomic clocks at the level of the hierarchy above the bottom of the branches and that is that is really the problem with the board either and i think it's beyond i don't get it and therefore they need to explain i think they're just wrong when you look at the reference which is why i think the first was appropriate on claim one in addition to claim thirty two they didn't eliminate the layer they actually broke it out and made it more right they sue at all is this notion of whether there was any elimination above the atomic clock level with the atomic clock block level being above the bottom level so once again we just simply have references that don't teach or  cases in this era of technology people use sometimes use different words to describe the same cocktails and i am in go position to determine whether or word of one that means the same of the other and so here we have the disagree with that testimony or do you just think even though that testimony if you take it as true it's just not substantial as of yet the testimony from the expert i mean it's a it just essentially says that that's what experts are supposed to do right i mean these are complicated problems and they explain what these terms mean and the fact finder of the board says well that sounds good to me that that's evidence and then we look at whether that substantial i mean frankly this claim limitation optimal placement seems a little bit of a stretch to be a part of the limitation anyway it says you have this thing and it determines the best fit to make it work out  jittery making it work well to write well first off there is no claim construction of determine the truth placement and frankly that is the petitioner problem because the petitioner is one that was supposed to seek all claim construction it was necessary for its arguments in fact if you look at the wasn't briefed before us that we don't last you know obviously have quite a good mastery of that technology but i think his question more precisely what it is about the experts mention of sense suit talks about performance driven and i thought where you were going to go which was the argument close to ten eliminated right nothing is eliminated it's like you took a piece of meat and you cut it into four chunks but it's still the same quantity of meat there's nothing in this references suggest that any portion of the meat was removed correct again respectfully i disagree the fourth didn't actually ever make that holding instead they said you argue that are zero next year removed and you can sue s one and those two are a limited then the board goes along and says m two were limited and so they never say that anywhere and you have represented to us in the red brief that the board made back holdings and named it expressively i think that you've made a little bit of mistake i think what you really have so in that sense the way that it's described is by proving logical ideas together and and our one through our forward groups together in our zero actually one x two were grouped together  and you didn't and didn't group them would say as boys and girls and you didn't group them that way in the hierarchical representation but you had a flatter representation that just said you know joey any and whoever the sure that's what showed in figure four that's a fl but this is a this is a claim that has a comprising transitionally which and it's under the broadest reasonable interpretation and so the fact that there might be another layer added or inserted i think doesn't mean that we don't remove the x euro in ours or those those groupings that level of hierarchy it appears in figure three but doesn't appear in figure four it's gone it's gone from the logical hierarchy that's what dr jasser testified to and that's what the  now it may be true that we could get reasonable minds can differ on this that we could come to different reasonable conclusions but under the substantial evidence standard what we understand from this court is that as long as there scintilla of evidence that would support the board's decision if you're the site dr cassie and they cite the references themselves as long as there is that kind of evidence we have to affirm the border even if we disagree even if there is another reasonable interpretation so the board walk through walk through the on claim one with the experts testimony has to be reasonable description of prior ar complicated technology and we're relying largely on experts on the board to tell us what these references say but it certainly doesn't seem like what he's saying about this reference we're talking about getting rid of our of notches up with pictures but i'm a little worried that are lying too much on my you know kind of simplistic view of the picture they're still variables so why not flattening when he said something else so that's precisely why i get back to the standard you're on to here in this case he thought to give me some reason to believe that he's correct and i still don't know just intuitively and i apologize if i just flat out wrong about this but intuitively it does not seem to me when you take away our zero but at the same level of the drawing replace it with our one of our two or three that you've taken away any level of hierarchy you've superfluous level of hierarchy above the atomic clocks that are eliminated and flattened in the process that's his interpretation of this technical reference he then said that based on that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood of a new love the r one two three love and why that doesn't destroy the flattening he doesn't express we say that he didn't need to do that to meet the claims and we were talking again about a broad get grid and every one block in each or maybe there is a lot more in the lower blocks it really doesn't matter we're talking about the top level and you take away that a block and replace it with a wind a two don't you still have three levels of hierarchy four is there everything that are going through our four is within or zero but that's the problem with your argument if everything and our zero is includes our onto our floor and you're just expanding you're not taking away any level you're just breaking about it's still there but nothing was added i mean my point if you can i just kind of backed up to thirty two before you completely run out of time because i find out even more baffling because i don't understand his testimony i don't understand if you reference what he said just where your friend said about the performance driven in that in the reference only relating to the stuff models if that's true then that seems to undermine the expert it could be any off the shelf commercial for playing methamphetamine thanks to you have to understand that those would necessarily after my macro placement that's when i feel like you've moved either to obviousness or at least to maybe see if your expert can establish that they would always every time do that but you don't have an explicit disclosure form struggling well to that point about every channel you're out of it does call out specifically cadences ensemble program for foreplay i don't know and then this is sort of important point the problem that we run into here is it's a little difficult to know what optimal as i mean like my colleague here told you that optimal was sixteen warnings fourteen three sixteen what you'll see is when they talk about that step twenty two which again is described as the placement of routing optimisation step and figure one it says when you do that step that new software tool such as silicon ensemble or p t s it's the same exact disclosure that we have in the in the reference so to the extent that they have support for this determining optimal placement in the patent which i agree is a