we have four arguments this morning and the first is seventeen dash one thousand in re dalan says say please forgive consideration this is a small case we realized there is one rejection of one client but it's an important case for the pallant and we believe that the issue for the law presented here is it's important for p submit that the board erred sustaining a section one of three rejection after having found that neither of the cited references disclosed the second backwardly folded flap limitation that's in claim five other boards reasoning that the missing limitation would have flowed naturally from the combination is logically and factually flawed specifically going back to the final  rejection by the examiner the examiner in turkey did the primary reference karo as meeting the limitation of the extension of the panel extension why not wait the carl i mean did am i remembering correctly that the board said that the examiner was wrong in saying you can actually tell from cairo what's happening to that other flag but then the board said and for that reason no anticipation because it's not necessary that it happen and in the way that is now claimed in this application but then the board says there are really only three things that can happen to that you tear it off you fold it this way you fold it the other way that was three going to their internal change one of the possibilities which we had knowledge is that it could be backwardly folded against the back surface as the examiner surveyed another possibility  yes i believe so yes and figure if you figure six of karo you see that that flap one of the six has five lines on it and flap want to wait has no line and then if you look at figure seven   has has those are openings one ten of those are holes one ten and in panel one of the two so so when panel one of two was folded over one  then then the pills are kind of projecting through those holes right i think this is why this may be completely insignificant but if you look at one zero eight in figure six in that kind of a second that that's a possibility another possibility is extension why don't wait could be in between the two panels want to go to with one for as it's folded up but the law of inherent required to find your claims i don't believe that's correct you think it was inherent there was one or two and one of the three rejection of claimed five that went on a field to the board and the primary issue board reversed the one or two rejection ok is not anticipated and the board should have reversed the one hundred three rejection as well because the examiners one hundred three rejection also relied upon because if there's no if there's no extension or there's no tab on the insert then then why have a retaining means in other words or there would be nothing for the retaining means t don't know that that's the case your honor but that's a possibility it's also a possibility that one awaited been between one hundred two and one for it's also possible that they're that they're both folded over the front face we the point is if correct or you want to use the ensor is part of the locking functionality you can extend that additional flap backwards we agree that flak want to eat is not shown as being folded in any particular way but there is a finite number of possibilities of which to do that even if we accept helen's argument that there is a fourth way which i don't believe that there is but even if there was that's still a really small number for a person of ordinary skin we are to look at and say doing the same thing so you can say a person or any skill the art would be able to look at carol and say ok well if i have two flats and i want to improve the retaining functionality the best thing to do would be to take that additional it says this package is focused around providing a child resistant senior friendly unit just package and so child resistant i think would also go to having more than one lock just like the ones above say you could have one or more internal l so to answer your honor yes kero does look at sort of improving upon the retaining functionality and it does say here that in that section the directed us to that it says one or more marks for absolutely yes because if you look at the figure six first men are laid out together and i think those hash tag lines are what i want to call them the lines that are located on one hundred six are showing one side and then if you look at one eight having no lin an additional sort of the reverse side so if we were to look at the opposite side of want to six it would be blank and the reason i'm sort of pointing that out is if you then jumped to figure seven i think what you're seeing is t carl and few of his sock is based on hindsight is not supported by substantial evidence specifically if you reproduced the retaining means of the sleeve of car and then and then as the board indicated repurpose extension want to wait two to engage that you don't have a functional package there's no there's no way to there's no release button to release now also you have an opening in the back of the package you know we're going to cut out would be so so really to make a functional package we argued below that you would have to add a fourth panel submit doesn't doesn't support that modification the examiner made no finding that adding a fourth panel with the second release button would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and the board expressly conceded that neither carlin nor his sock explicitly teaches the desirability of adding another panel for this purpose of accordingly there was no factual support for the modification of card to add a fourth panel with a second release button so nevertheless despite this lack of factual foundation the board concluded that it would be an obvious expedience to add both  the fourth panel with the second release fund and to repurpose caro's extension want to wait we said we submit that that was a legal error your honour's this court has repeatedly held that obvious