get the benefit of having presented separate arguments in order to get a separate reaction from the board well that's not the issue in this case that issue that is the predicate question under the one  to consider the merits of all those claims the border to that argument which is exactly why they are both the representative claims will see seven and then in the subsequent one forty five back to the district court agree with the board that either fail to certainly are the the district court tells us that the board must even wear high refuses to argue anything but the representative class of the district court's reading of our regulation the board is now forced to consider more reckless claims of hives never argue shack used representative claims the dish reported agreed with us up until that point they really represented claims here it was probably higher did not carry this burden under the rule that issue was not before the score the issue is once you based on that the claim the words of the claim or whether they're described it is eminently reasonable to basically say it's march and put the burden shift the burden to the applicant while under the statute it's the applicant's responsibility of the four to  which is not in the same words or that clearly included in the specification you've already got and you refile the case you now have a new filing which contains that subject matter whether a claim can describe itself and provide it to a written description is another interesting question but the issue only arises when you are seeking priority to go back to the earliest days now that may be an issue here because we observe that these cases and been pending for a long time and have been restyled frequently so that might be a factor but that really wasn't a factor in the rejection before us as i understand well every one of the claims all two thousand and eighty but that's not all that unusual is it i mean or it may not be when everyone goes but it's not prohibited it's not prohibited per se but it is unusual in the experience of the director this is not because when you have something like this where we continue to try to engage mr pile on where his claims are described and he refuses at every stage and then when he finally decides to step out of the box and take a shot at the claims he doesn't extreme you suddenly reach the point where it no longer applies i think that's inappropriate that you rendered in september two thousand and five your prior to the decision in this case also involved an issue over one twelve sufficiency or description in that case unlike this case w to make for the grounds for rejection to have to go beyond the written description say here and this is specifically indicating where the written description was indefinite or otherwise we really were under the just have to should be reversed so in that document there is a burden upon the appellant the petition to state all of the reasons why the examiner was wrong so if the examiner and said that there is inadequate written description isn't the burden of coming forward with a stating otherwise initially on the appellant on the applicant and then the lunacy the board to do w the regulations required to respond to a group that is grouping needs to be done whoever else but if an issue hasn't been placed in contention and the initial agreed with the board's group and in effect waived any arguments for different groups the board had an independent do under the rules to make a proper group and limitation means it necessarily lacks support for every architecture but if in fact the group that's been married has own limitations would that be sufficient if it's a representative group  not identified in all the claims what you're asking the p t o to do as i understand is take all twenty four hundred claims identify all the limitations and each one of the claims and then group them together twelve and regardless of differences limitations we can reject them all by picking up a few of the limitations to find them not supported and applying that form that pollution to all twenty four hundred the notion that again it should be read to create an obligation independent of how they have to keep appeals his rejection to fix those errors and group claims and consider arguments that never been made is incorrect all that daniel says rather doing little more that is what you've been complaining about about pulling the limitations together more explicit thing that issue for here as it p t o you have misapplied misinterpreted your regulation lot but the why why are you complaining if in fact there's an opportunity to select additional representatives claims perhaps through through their briefing that will resolve the put some independent burden on us to do more than any of it does our position is that our interpretation which merely buys the classical wave if you don't do it we're not going to do it for you is correct and the education which is we put in front of you the rejection you may appeal to the board and you may make whatever arguments you make if you want to argue the kitchen sink and you do it actually we will consider it but if you decide not to we are not