product is the invention disclosed and claimed in the past my understanding of w b i feel it's consistent with democrats because when the claimed invention is the product being commercialized and when the commercial product is claimed invention  didn't but there wasn't a finding by the board that i could see where they said yes that the claimed invention is co extensive to the products when in fact you know i i wonder how it could be when we've got so many different claims flying around here with different permutations that the basic i p a architecture the question always is whether the claims reasonably come naturally with be it has to be as you point out reasonably commensurate that's one element of the inquiry another element is is it the merits of the claimed invention that are driving the secondary consideration in disha right in here vs now we're left with the switching regulators you know what extent are the switching regulators driving on the commercial sales driving all this all the praise and copying etc versus the automatically enjoy nexus because of the elements combined in that particular way happens to be no no i'm not suggesting that all i'm suggesting severe is something in between going on here you need to look at the claim  traceable to that dependent feature can i ask you what what evidence did you have that said we have commercial success we have other forms of you know non art that are stronger for some of these claims than for example the anticipated one id well first of all that was not it wasn't necessary to make that argument book but it may have turned out to be necessary well a simple type logical argument and i don't know i don't know which part of this is wrong you made a set of secondary considerations arguments equally applicable to all of the claims in all of these patents some of them are secondary considerations were traceable to the trial the claims in one night in trial such as claim to which the board felt that there was a claim chart in one of these cases where you lined up your patent claim particular in the opinion other than commentary about two stage architecture being a basis for all of the commercial success you enjoyed the arguments that were made both  confuse and that's why they reached the wrong so i think we've both saved your two and a half minutes mr smith language substantially uninterrupted flow of power i think in the case if we were talking about it delivering power to something that's using it doesn't really make any sense because nobody would ever want to be power supply systems as these are the way we can conceptualize this think it is sort of as a delivery system if you imagine for water which can be analogized to power at the end of the line where the customer is using the power  the tank and what the customer the user of the system experiences is a new part of the drug to power flow as a user but in the system the primary and secondary winding circuits the buckets have spacing between them why would you do that because there's some really relevant what's relevant is what the board actually found based on the start of world that the transistors driving the transformer are operating with a complimentary fifty percent duty cycle which means when one transistor is off the other put on there is always a power input or in our analogy the buckets have absolutely no spacing between them at all in the start of the old system and it works the same way in the two one pat that's what we're really talking about and that's why we believe that regard list of what one finds with the reader in decision and the board's finding regarding the i zero current it just doesn't matter because the claim doesn't require anybody to analyze what the power flow is experienced by the user actually i want to address the also some of the questions that came up can you just talk a little bit about the average current your scutcheon and the rehearing decision it can absolutely wear what should we do about it regardless of how it got there who triggered it what do we do with it now i think you don't need to decide anything about it because i think the board's finding regarding started or which i just went through the fifty percent duty cycle the fact that start the voltage is effectively the input  years prior art was just using it as an example of paul's loads you're actually glossing over the fact that figure two is represented as a priority and saying that that represents the operation started all i think the board was created in that circumstance to adopt that assumption argue and do it as it were and then reason from there a fine consequence i think it's perfectly permissible for the board to adopt a party when issued a hypothetical and see what happens from there and that's a circumstance i the arguments that came up during the follow up for the regarding secondary considerations because so much focus can you be a very specific about what i took to be at least the very simple version of your main point about secondary considerations which is sink or presented secondary considerations evidence and argument which  applicable to this universe of patent claims including ones that we now know simply describe the prior art and didn't make any distinctions so that one has to draw the inf that whatever the success was in the praises cetera was due to the barrier so where did they say that in a way that they all say that down if i've just summarized things correctly that is claims are responsible for which parts of the success because you've got over six patents on hundred eighty five claims some of them are usually inconsistent for example from the twenty thirteen decision this court decided particular case the board found yes there's a motivation to add a switching regulator to stagger walk because because of what we said in the twenty fifteen federal circuit opinion and it appeared to me in the initial decision that there was some confusion on the board's part between inductors and and synchronous rectifiers and what they include which do not include inductor and then on the rehearing decision the board came back and said something about how pressman talks about higher efficiency steigerwald talked about don't put an inductor in my system and then the board appeared to just in figure ninety the evidence wasn't there something where i'm not sure where on the same paper but that's what i'm looking at you have they make an argument right they make an argument that if you line those up properly there's that is in fact showing