this field of study in this art as you can see from the the objective sources we submitted on layer is also known to have a this and he said function associated with it so so if that's true are we down the the problematic questions raised with the character and an and because you say it has your sort of functional a functional sort of claiming if you don't know what you know whether or not to materials will be compatible with each other and it and it's clear that not all materials that meet the requirements the claim may necessarily and here to each other and there's not a problem specification is a patent i think we're mixing to encourage there is me i think it's inappropriate if there is an infirmity with the specification and we don't think there is at all it is not the time to address that before the board and we can't raise the specter potential rental issues in order to completely eliminate a claim limitation from on the claim in the terms of the bomb layer regardless of how much detail is and that's because i understand that this is this point your honor i think there are cases like the only scoring case when there's only one reasonable explanation that you can reverse but i take your point if you don't think there's only one reason like the nation the appropriate relief would be remain but i think this case can fall does fall in and in the claims it does and there is not a single statement anywhere in the intrinsic eleventh's specification or the file history where the applicant provided a disclosure to the word bomb you're necessarily looking to the strip and then two things on that your honor first of all what was submitted with respect to the ordinary meaning of ron or vonleh or was it was a webster's dictionary a general purpose dictionary that general purpose dictionary does not confirm that a that the only construction of the word bond is to it here if you look at argument that you're making right now i know the board to even consider the six friends together the board said that the better course of action is to fall precedent from this court in terms of looking at what the intrinsic evidence says with honor when we look at the extrinsic evidence there first of all the dictionary definition i don't think provides support second of all we have like two articles that or pattern that that the other side was like on our time just from an i'm sorry but the there is a reference to an intermediate layer that has a use of properties that just defines the middle of the interval there is a reference to a bomb lare the doesn't indicate that it uses property's it's very similar to what's in the disclosure of the three sixty the purpose of the three sixty patent layer is to provide strengthening for the article overall there's not a single disclosure in this patent that indicates anywhere that it must have and it's important the examiner stated that as long as there is a layer on top of the bond layer it's effectively functioning as the claimed bottom layer and that any reference to a huge and properties are unclaimed isn't just an indication of how the patent understood the invention but it's also an indication of how the p t o understood the patent and here the p t o understood the claim as not requiring and he's a property and so the patent office and this is this is the office action out pages one twenty two and one twenty three many of the file history they said specifically the tearing to the layer functions as a bond player because when the has the optional outer coat it's between it has the chemical properties and it's located between the substrate and and an album where therefore it functions as a bond where the and the applicant never contested that that is at least an indication that is consistent with how person of ordinary skill looking at the intrinsic yemen's would say yet i've looked at this i've looked at the file history in the file history the examiner understood the bottom layer as not to be understood that there are there must be something that is going to allow them to stay together and it could be something like pressure on top of them doesn't necessarily have to be a huge now the problem with with you construction is that it is limited to being designed to humor another layer to the substrate that is inconsistent with what is in the specification or on the specification says specifically that you can also have an intermediate layer between the substrate and the monolayer you can also have an intermediate layer between the bottom layer and the outer b s a astley or so in that case how is that design to add here or an outer layer to the substrate in that case the intermediate layers of the one performing the efficient functionality so the boards the board is correct to reject their construction not only because it has no support in the two things your honor first of all we would disagree that it doesn't give any meaning to the later bond because again the point of the bottom layer in the claim is to provide an overall strengthening improving the fracture tough of the article that contains a layer that's that's very clear from the specification it's out columns on sixty one to sixty six and column two lines forty three forty six that's the purpose of the bonfire so the board's construction includes to chemical composition that provides that toughness that provides that strengthening and then number two the board's construction again the bore said it was based on where it's located in the article and also what it's made up of but it says if that it's any layer located between at least two other layers or between the substrate and another layer in it's that limit least two other layers or between the substrate in another layer it's that between the water any any two layers recognizes what is in the specification that the bond layer does would read that out because u t c s construction is designed to here another layer to a substrate so their construction is overly narrow in light of the intrinsic evidence and therefore it's inconsistent with the in if there are any consumer questions regarding the claim construction i would want to address the reasonable expectations well could you just address because you didn't i mean the great grief response to the again a very hypothetically assuming making yes one we did say in our red briefs that if this board were to alter the claim construction the appropriate remedy is not a reversal it's a remake and at least because there is another ground that the board instituted on but did not provide any analysis of in light of the fact that they believe that the first ground the ground of eton in terence either was the the appropriate grounds for yes because the board did not provide any analysis of the second ground they did institute on it but they did not provide any analysis of it now with respect to tearing t though we did include a teaching or we did include a discussion in the reply brief it was this remand to answer your not your honour's question with respect to the one twelve issue this isn't a situation where what we're seeing is if the bore or if this court reads the claim construction  about hearing another layer to the substrate a could be the it mitch media player i think that the council said really tracks from that so