the submission and it had a flow chart no one point it just has a process she's kooker that's the one of the boxes sure that could be anything it is the process for the claimed invention and if you read it in the context of the padding basically speaks in the language of the patent it said it replaces the conventional cooker structure which the patent also describes or the traditional cooker structure which is the honor neither the statute nor the regulations nor the law requires such a point by point that by such a point by point refutation in the declaration for us to show you made the invention before the ro reference in the way you do that is to go through the claimed invention limitation by limitation intro where your evidence shows that you made a convention consisting of various limitations is your own  d in that aspect the road to the group declaration if you look at paragraph six specifically points out that the claim direct the claim didn't mention uses the process that didn't exhibit a which we reproduc and if you look at the claimed invention even the board found that the claimed invention claim one of the representative of all the planes and a person skilled in the art of looking at the claimed invention and looking at the three page exhibit would but together mr group did do what he needed to do to stablish production to practice because an examiner and someone skilled in the art reading his declaration would know that this is the process that's being used to make  and when you look up it's three page declaration with a claim where most of the steps are proud of our traditional way of making the price making the cheese and there's one step that the patent makes clear is the additional step of not using not dunking it in water basically when you're cooking the cheesy it would be it would be clear that that it is a match up and neither the m p t nor the case law specifically requires that the declaration contains a point by point  where each claim limitation is found in the in the record that that's provide the your declaration however is sketchy and clues are either the words they use and it's it's hard to quibble with that characterization you are actually there are the details the judge laurie is looking for and i think the law does require there's not any there's no direction from the m p p or any case law that requires an element by element recitation gratian remember you are swearing behind something this is a priority contest someone else has has an entitlement here and you're trying to say no we were first known to have to be pretty strong in your ability to point that out in your i think that the record does point that out let me answer the question on the conclusory statements here if you look at the bar koski case where that language comes from the conclus statement language i think it informs the standard at which that conclusion language has been applied in the past in more koski mr bork casting puts in a one thirty one affidavit with some declaration the examiner looks at both the declaration and the affidavit and find one of the one of the problems you find with that is the declaration that the exhibits themselves don't address reduction to practice but look like something that the proposal to do something the board looks a next reviews both the declaration and the exhibits and when the board looks at it they say with respect to this reduction to practice point they say there's nothing in the exhibits or that show that there's an appreciation  finally write that sentence that says it's a confused restatement what he's pointing to is the only evidence and work out to be for the reduction to practice is not in the exhibits but just a mere allegation that in the declaration so when that to operate together as the law requires the patent office to do to take the whole thing together there's nothing there here in contrast in group when mr blair is the information that i see i would expect to find you know that there's still this to nasa the indices and it stretches unexpectedly and so on and so forth even though it's done in a non act we have solution and that information would be all in the exhibit so that would be in the exhibit where mr group seven paragraphs thick we're using the offer that pops realities manufacturing process that's an exhibit a and then he paid a stake when he goes through each of the pilot plant trials and what is being tested within  a reference or the burden is to show that everything that's in your claim was done at a certain time in a way sufficient to negate overcome within the reference it's very strange to me and very hard to understand this prosecution using an examiner was being picked and saying you didn't show where in this three hundred pages you did this or that which is not to been proven just to provide some more details i gather i don't know maybe it's not too late to start again and refile but i think it's pretty clear that the burden of overcoming that reference was not met by the presentation and in your honor to the extent after the examiner made that comment we landed late has counsel did try to put in exactly that kind of a and after at this point in the in this person at this point in that prosecution this is the exhibit that was entered into evidence by the office of patent legal administration and it is one that the examiner should have considered as a whole and if you read it in concert and it's not it's not that it has to all be in the declaration if you read the declaration in concert with without water and then that's what you need to show and to the extent that it needs to get behind the date of the reference the declaration clearly does that because mr group does point out that the claimed invention was reduced to practice before the fact of date of the role is referenced post on information in belief based upon very clearly based upon his review of the documents that are that he authenticate are the inventors documents and people that work at the direction of the inventor which is paragraph three based upon his review of those documents is a working relationship with mr wygant one of the inventors for five years so he recognizes his handwriting and based upon then him what marching through and kind of mapping those documents through his declaration by first pointing out exhibit a here is the process that someone skilled in the art examiner particular would be able to understand just flipping through it after each especially after he spent seven years with this application and then another what eleven or twelve given out march through showing the work done by the  to show repeatedly different different attempts to have and successfully reducing to practice that same process and that you get that both from a combination of the declaration with the exhibits and the rule under any case that has been both cited by this court and the board is the examiner has that burden he has to look at both part he can't just look at the declaration by itself he must look at both the declaration and exhibit and read them together and it's just for this reason there's no requirement that all this information be just in the declaration has decided he would and he's not going to look at this evidence even after given the point by point he could have very easily accepted the point by point and take a look at it to see if we are right that we did and we did reduce to practice before the roads pa did not he did not agree to do that but on this record your good morning ma'am please the court this is video involves a single straightforward issue whether the group declaration was sufficient to show that the inventor's reduce the claimed invention to practice for the effective date of road where what was your view that with your mistakes the examiner's decision to not enter the second declaration to the record this came after a prosecution had already been closed a second time again to assist the applicants proceeding through the office the office had already given the applicant an extraordinary opportunity by this point to have the declaration entered into the record seven years after mandal lakes was first aware that rhodes was being cited against it and after the original interparty three exam had already made it to the board the case was pending on appeal before the board at which point land o'lakes said aha we've discovered we have this evidence of reduction to practice so that we can swear behind the reference at that point they had to file petition to have the this first declaration entered into the record because the case was already on appeal before the board they were granted that relief to have this declaration entered into the record legal actions going appeal here and those general haven't had their evidence considered that's true your honor but at that point when they tried to have the second declaration entered into the record under the rules for in a partner three exam at that point the standard for admitting it would have been whether when or likes it shown good and sufficient reasons why it was necessary and why the evidence was not presented earlier and the examiner determined that they had not given good reason for why they had not presented a more detailed explanation when they presented the first relevant  letter like has been able to challenge the examiners decision not to answer the second declaration and to the record there were no it was not a question of when i was there challenging elsewhere the question is this entire relationship point seven or the reexamination had been pending for seven or eight years this was actually the third ever interparty injury examiner filed which you can tell by the number ninety five zero zero zero zero zero three it's now the longest standing in again i think i know the question of whether the second declaration  the examiner said that they had not presented good and sufficient reasons for why they hadn't presented that evidence earlier was the purpose of the process to the deceptive from doing it pro se or was it someone who why wouldn't one of skill in the are you able to divine from these charts that it is in fact to practicing an alternate manufacture procedure and i think that's exactly the point to judge rater that it is it does appear to be some sort of alternate procedure but it's not at all clear from the face of  the other exhibits that that's what was reduced to practice i hope i answered your question so as we said as i started out saying the only issue before this court right now is whether the group declaration was sufficient landa length has not met its burden to show  a reduction to practice of the claimed invention prior to the effect that they have roads as was discussed the that duration only includes conclusory statements and the burden is not on the examiner to provide a detailed analysis of the hundreds of pages of exhibits absent some initial explanation from the patentee as to what what is included in the exhibits and where exactly they show a reduction to practice in this represent the examiner created he never once said he couldn't find the elements he never bothered to look at it and your law requires taking a look at the whole thing and he didn't create any record on which data you can find even one sentence where they suggest that he looked at the whole record and that's the rule that's in bar koski that's the rule that you notion ski that's the there is not a case that they can cite or i can find that suggest that the examiner can just look at a portion of the record in fact in ocean city the board even went back and instructed the examiner examiners the conclusory statements offered throughout the declaration that seems to indicate that  and went throughout the day liberation movement but he didn't have a single word in there when you say the declaration i view that as he just looked at the four page document that is the declaration there's nothing in there that suggests that even looked at the exhibit and in fact invention or the exhibits upon which the conclusion rash asked me like he consulted it and i don't i don't think that sentence i don't think we suggested he considered consider the exhibit what he did was he he took that third party requesters view that basically that those statements are conclusory and under more koski i don't think that our declaration i think is not a conclusion or a declaration it goes well beyond the fact of we're casting where that language came from and i do i do think that in this record there's just nothing to show that the officer or the board looked at the entire record before making this decision and for that reason we ask that you vacate their