faster or skilled artist than would look at call back and say i think go even faster which means that i will get higher speeds which means that i can wires at a higher rate and increase productivity so why not increase that not s teaching away from using a broad molecular weight distribution but i'm having difficulty seeing how this is a teaching away when it just says that it's better to use a narrower distribution about how do you make this polymer which is is a complicated thing it's not you know as simple as just mixing a few things together and when called back i say how do you make my polymers the one that i say performs so much better versed don't use chain  suggest that callback is vention is the narrow molecular weight distribution polymer not just a preference and also note that they can never made this argument the board someone suggested it by essentially just weight distribution has it was consistently known to be the way to increase not flow rate because you were able to combine multiple different molecular weight and you know they go through some don't do all of these methods that were previously known for broad because what i found is you can get great results just by using a narrow molecular weight distribution and your honour's again i would just point to the fact that we're having this discussion because the poor took it upon itself to with you and try to figure out what a skilled artist then would think that callback teaches when they can never presented any evidence on this point so we didn't have the notice an opportunity to respond now had dice and maybe argument that callback was not teaching that you should go with a narrow molecular weight distribution or that there's so many other distribution in order to get these high processing speeds at disappear your quality so that's why it's so key to callback which again is the reference that they can chose to rely on so it needed to to use callbacks palmer as the starting point that's where we are we're talking about whether callback is whether whether modifying callback would be obvious to achieve the claimed invention not just any palmer out there so on that point we have to look at what call if i could just finish this answer thank you so what it would be a different situation if we were talking about come combining multiple references we're not here we're talking about one thing goal reference which means that it the starting point and i think needed to show there was the motivation somebody looking at this with think yeah it does make sense for me to increase not flow rate even though callback says it already goes pretty fast it already great great polymer that judge di had with my friend during the opening argument particularly having to do with teaching away because i think that an explanation of what moore's teaching away argument is really unpack being construed for claims construction that's just not so the board made particular findings based on schedule evidence and they haven't been shown to be clearly erroneous now what's what my friend tries to do and i think she said and of course that's not the case and that's not how the board understood it but it is what we had why was this really i appreciate that where we've been focused on teaching a way but isn't the question really whether the isn't that the best argument and in fact a difficult one to respond to well i guess i might agree that it's their best argument so i wouldn't agree that it's a difficult one to respond to  person of ordinary skills that i prophetical person's knowledge was coming back we still have and the board found a closed lower rate range starting at fifteen grams per ten minutes with a practical maximum value that other side but the board also made an alternate finding and that is that they person of ordinary skill armed with what a person of ordinary skill would be armed with and that includes the prior right references like oh no which side of that a forty knowledge of the person of ordinary skill so they knew this person this hypothetical person of ordinary skill knew and the board found that you could go even if the only disclosure and come back was that twenty four grams  ten minutes flow range you could go slightly upward to the twenty seven dollars which is the low end of the plus or minus thirty range this disclosed that's claimed rather in the  very modest uptick was well within the zone of what the person of ordinary skill with understood and you can and that's true even if you take into account the teaching away argument an argument by the way as my friend said and quite correctly the board was obligated to take the call back as a whole and this judge dyke properly pointed out the callback as a whole suggests that this aspect of the specification is described as something that performs better and even if there is something that generally night not someone who doesn't catch the language in terms of performance that because it negatively affects the performance and is that not the way no it's not teaching away at all it's even if that was all that there was in the document that wouldn't be a teaching the way the teaching of white has to be something along the lines of a stop sign something that something that says that discourages a particular path or would lead to the person of ordinary skill in a divergent direct opening argument didn't flee contest that other than to suggest a callback itself doesn't provide the motivation and quite frankly one of the other aspects of this that i haven't underscored yet but it's very important just looking for weight distribution aspect of the argument suit all of these are questions of fact the burdens were properly allocated the law was properly applied there is some evidence that supports case but there was other evidence that was  against the board quite properly resolve those issues in resolving this case on proper evidently supported by nick the fact that mr and mr justice before you sit down would you please  discussed blocking patents page fifty seven dollars of the appendix and it has to be understood in the in the vein that the board was talking about entirely here and that is that this was this was a burden reason they were not able to show commercial success but they did prove my sales data that's right they did provide sales data but nothing more are inadequate to establish commercial success citing its own opinion an ex parte gela which in turn side of this court's decision in cable electric which holds that what mere gross sales figure show in relation to commercial success is quote fairly minimal and that's exactly what the board did here it didn't say that there was going to be no weight given to it in fact quite the contrary when you look at what the board said in the end fully considered it this is  not and is not the last and so for that reason alone the board erred with respect to the market share data again my friend on the other side suggests that the board with simply saying market share data would have been nice that's not what the the board said that go still data was insufficient to show commercial success because there was a market share data that's not what the court has held as we've discussed in our brief and then on the broader nexus point which again we have in our characterize it as we can i'm not sure on the missile is it i'm sorry i'm sorry you cut out again touched i could you repeat that last one the board statements in the middle of fifty seven don't seem to dismiss the evidence entirely but rather to characterize it as weak evidence your honor i would say that when you're reading the previous paragraph where the where the board actually talks because it said i can't figure anything out with it without market share data so it also think either and that i think that i'm out of time if i could just finish the answer to this question to answer your question we'll see more question jobsite but what i was saying is that the board already had said that it wasn't going to consider growth data because it didn't have market share data and then simply just saying that the evidence is weak doesn't suggest that it actually considered that data under the proper legal standard so i would say that it's still an error of the board to have to have essentially said that they didn't need to consider it at all if there are any