depends from claim eleven part of the intrinsic record and it includes the limitation power is transmitted by induction includes that limitation claim to all further specifies that the component the internal component that is being powered by the induction is a rechargeable battery and no one disputes in this case that the principle of operation of a to charge a battery i electro magnetic induction is electro magnetic induction and that it requires an internal receiving oil where current is generated inside the patient to charge this rechargeable battery and there is no dispute in the record there is no other evidence to the record that any other structure would be able to charge a rechargeable battery electric magnetic induction without the receiving coils and the record evidence is consistent with that arrangement and that needing electro magnetic induction we have the record about that what happed is doing it does not have a receiving oil at all and and so the board disregarded its own correct interpretation for electromagnetic induction which does require this structure that there be an internal receiving coil and have clearly doesn't have it didn't even have any need for any didn't have any internal components that were were powered in fact the board it's typically made that finding about claim eleven that there is power that's being transmitted to the internal components of the device and claim twelve makes it clear that it is it's further specifies what that internal component is that it is rechargeable batter references in the record i think i've just given about three or four that are consistent with and with coke there is understanding of electromagnetic induction but it does require this receiving well so there is no evidence to support this vibrating back concluded there was a motivation to combine the huff reference with a coakley or implied the laser for reference and that's fine it was based on hindsight reconstruction and it's not supported by substantial evidence the only basis that the board relied on for making this combination is an alleged reduction in size and ethics but there's no evidence in the record what the product what size it would have been or there would have been any reduction in the x turtle components i added this battery because no one disputes that huff does not need any battery were found there is no parts inside that need any power so there has been a need for a battery so either by adding the battery you're going to end up with a device that has a battery this is just sitting there  someone's head not doing anything we're going to be changing the principle of operation the principle of operation again is the vibrating magnet by this extra oil if you're adding a battery that you're changing that principle of operation this turns on your argument that  i point your honour's there's no evidence there would have been any reduction in size and combining the two doesn't give you a streamlined product it gives you either a product with a battery that's not doing anything or it's completely changing the principle of operation and in fact the board's own finding here undermines its conclusion of motivation because its own finding is that that does combination would be a substantial redesign so at that at best this is a motivation a generic motivation to build something better and we've cited cases in our gallup brief sixty six page sixty two and sixty three that a generic motivation to combine is not sufficient so the board's finding with respect to you think is just not supported by the evidence the only basis that there is no finding as to what would what would be the result in terms of size for the product is just as generic interest to make something smaller but there's no evidence that there would actually be something smaller or if you're removing a portion of it does that make it smaller we're actually adding to it we're adding about it we're not removing anything that's my point you're out of work we're adding structure instead of taking structure away and there are some alleged allegation i guess that that i adding this structure inside is somehow going to change make the structure on the outside smaller but there's no evidence of that and if you did something different to the outside then they are principle operation of how the device works to begin with so there is no basis other than some generic interest to build something better well i mean explain what you mean by changing the principle of operation to be whatever you're  modifying a reference to to confine to your you or there's a big difference between changing the principle of operation and completely undoing the way it operates so of course you're changing  operation when you find two references well there could be an example where you could add something to an existing device to add a feature but here here it's undisputed  hough device has it works with this x turtle oil and it has no ability to use anything to power anything on the inside so adding it we would have to be adding structure on the inside then do something with the magnet but then when you have that the outside is not going to be operating in the same way that it was with the with the magnet on the inside so that there is no dispute as to how hot itself change the principle of operation and then if there are no further questions on claim twelve i'll briefly touch on our preamble argument that we have four planes forty five and six and twel the patient and elements in the claims and that comes directly from the preamble but i think the most important want is of the essence of the invention the point here is that the inventor clearly it has to do with the board because the board disregarded the absence of the invention that it was for treatment of single sided deafness and this patent says that it's an improvement it contrasts its invention over the ordinary bone conduction device so this is considered be an improvement and it's a big i the board's disregarding the essence of the invention that was for a treatment of single sided deafness it disregarded certain evidence in the record didn't even consider certain evidence in the record so for single sided deafness and so we pointed to that as another basis for so not just are you saying that the prior art device had to have tended to serve the precise same purpose in order for it to be considered relevant part of our i don't believe that's what i'm saying there are but i'm saying that that we had evidence in the record as to why a individual a person of skill the art would not have to go back to the  twelve example would not have combined the huffed of ice with it i mean this is a substantial evidence analysis and the board cited to expert testimony that they would have combined to that that you know you could look at it more broadly that anytime you're dealing with trying to deal with deafness you might have things that were for different types of hearing conditions but that when you look at them i mean you saying we should define the scope of the art differently because of this preamble i guess i'm saying we should define what evidence there is additional evidence that should have been considered that the board disregarded did not even address the evidence because of its determination that the preamble was not limiting and so for example i mentioned six the hostile device and the teaching and half that is teaching a way that it didn't recommend its device sort of drill down on why you think this is preamble limitation is meaningful do you think it's meaningful because it limits the prior arts that the board is allowed to consider that somehow the scope of the  relate to this hearing condition or or so why is it so important because you there are complete structures that are just closed in the substance of the claim it limits the way the board would combine the art iran or the there isn't any other are it's it's half and it's place it for it's carlson but it limits the way and how the board only claim remaining are claims remaining are directed to the apparatus so as you pointed out and i think you are alluding to in your question the question is what is what is the apparatus what are the characteristics of that apparatus and that has been the focus of the petition and that has been the focus of the appeal touched upon the preamble and not only did the board conclude that the claims are pavel even  understanding divan a clue is a technical publication describing a clinical use of a product but it didn't go into detail of the physical characteristics of the baja device being used there and the only reliance successfully treating patients suffering from single side deafness using a baja device so there's no there's no teaching the way it's simply a matter of the argument about teaching away as mr active because it doesn't reflect what the actual combination is that the reliance on the secondary reference carlson was was quite limited just to fill in those specific physical gap what about claim twelve and so claim twelve again it's   difficult to make this argument of changing principal operation when there's really nothing in the forty pattern to suggest that they've designed any particular way to the implanted part in life saver includes additional components that take advantage of that rechargeable battery including the d s p digital signal processor one hundred and forty one as well as a it ought to just little converter as well also to include additional components in that implanted part and that is specifically what's taught in licensing for in fact the work pointed to the dimension in life safer with respect to claim operating parameters of the vice if we're moving the programming that would dictate the signal processing that's being performed to benefit the patient let's say for specific it recognizes that moving these things into their a translation of the swedish release of relevant portion the swedish filing would do the board conclude as to claim construction of those two terms power and induction so for power it was a bit more clear they they said the claim construction went against you but then said it reads that its own construction not to require any internal coil and those two things consistent if you accept the at the top of forty five great ordinary ordinarily although we agree that it ordinarily means but then when they said it's a plane an ordinary means ordinarily means that a forty four right plane an ordinary that seems to be indoors or the equivalence of the concepts and then saying either and here but here i'm not quite sure what it means but you still need an internal c  and i can i say ask you yes so let me just say a few for you to react to not necessarily my view so samson recently said indefinite this d does not translate one way or the indefinite has as a result of it clearly being a means for this function claimant absolutely no structure which means there is a big in clot in the middle of the claim and you can't apply our prior art to winning analysis there certainly are situations where you don't need to define the outer boundaries of the claims to identify an example the falls within the scope of the claim and here you have the patent or admitting consider the arguments about constrained construction and i think correctly recognized that that out of time didn't say that the patent owners construction was a correct instruction wasn't an agreed upon construction per se they just said use it for this proceeding and i think the board correctly recognized that that plane construction is within the purview of the court or the board and they disagreed with that  construction and so they already considered these claims in connection with that construction and decided that they could not render a patent realty analysis but what the board said as i understand it is the board said well we get that there is this one specifics structure that's identified in claims but because of also claims this other digital processing means and it's a means function claims therefore we have a one to one problem but i don't see the board actually saying it's impossible to construe which could be true one portion of the claim when you when you've got it and or because the war has to be meaningful i think it's because of the end and i can't remember the exact this that were shown in the prior art there would be something in the prior art within the coverage of the claim that would invalidate the claim for that reason but i think that issue there and your honor it is whether the board could and done as you say that might have been a scenario but the was it incorrect for the board to stop short saying that this would not have been a meaningful comparison because we can't interpret with reasonable certainty the scope of the meaning of these claims and then to touch on something about the motivation to combine it that was raised with counsel i believe i mean you judge newman i understand i prefer she ate that we're looking at it this is a substantial evidence finding is there substantial evidence to support this combination of references but the substantial evidence is going to be is would a reasonable mine except this evidence to be adequate to support the conclusion implausible on its face right if you if you take a bunch of functions out of the thing that needs to be on the outside sort of stands to reason you might be less space both for the items performing the for the function and for the power labeling them to do it i agree that iraq is too and interests there is a generic interest to do that but there is not evidence that there would actually be products that would be smaller and and it  an issue with respect to the position being deficient in terms of maybe pointing to irrelevant parts or confusing parts of the record for a plane construction here the board sorting out page twenty conducted the because that's not part of the i p r process so in district court you would have any definiteness challenge remaining and if the district court disagreed with there i think that's what put it in three and a case i that's my reading of a footnote three however since the issue if the court was one of the final decision which did not deal with the issue of the scope of the stop it would surprise me that a partner would argue that that is merely dicta and that it's they would actually certainly wouldn't surprise me that they would actually raise on a terms of the efficient way particularly when we've been going through this case for st over two years the ph is simply decided that we're not going to decide obviousness for these  though the patent owner is admitting that means for digital signal processing is a known digital signal processor you know that the the notion that the board would have needed to engage in