will get to the board actually found that modification of hamilton would be obvious it said that the the course or the grooves on the course can be reversed it's nothing more than the common sense this is not a second modification and not something that we propose for the first time the opposing counsel objected to one of the figures in our brief that showed that was not board found in order to try to create a shoulder right no your honor that that's not what it was in fact that modification pretty clearly didn't have the  doesn't make sense in light of the things that could be changed and in light of the claim destruction that applied but are you talking about your own or i believe that's a ye i mean that's probably an operable absolutely that you can never build that device the idea of the idea was that was meant to show that the board construed  in hindsight i shouldn't have gone anywhere near that to make that argument because it's just distracting from really what what the case is about for me and i apologize for that  the board i think incorrectly concluded that the ends of the fingers do not engage the shoulder of the first core into figuring gauge a shoulder at the edge of at the edge of the end the interior edge touches the shoulder and we don't touch it because it's a snug fit and and  that's all that's required for for engagement once the board found that hamilton doesn't disclose though they completely dropped the ball because what happened was that they framed the issue as hamilton disclosed or render obvious the relationship they said hamelin doesn't disclose and disclose what shell to disclose the end of the fingers of biting the shoulder doesn't disclose the relationship between what is in the claims so what they found doesn't disclose they never even talked about is this obvious they told us that was the issue and then they went on to say and by the way we don't have to address these other arguments about obviousness but we agree with argument that that it would be obvious to reverse the grinding of of the cores and the reason why it would be obvious is the same reason why they should have found that the claims were obvious because bob well there is evidence the evidence is in the prior art and the board was able to look at the prior are inconclusive that the that and then they said hamilton doesn't disclose the relationship between the shoulder and the core and that's partly because they rejected your definition of  the claim exactly says extending from the end of the first court towards the base portion and in that case you've got to enforce that extends from the act by definition they're different all right so if we're talking about plain to them in fact before the board i was going to present a claim construction the examiner didn't present a claim construction in arlington did present a claim construction so the board went and came up with this idea and is different from enforcement but the specification itself is not at all consistent specification refers that same end seventy also as an end portion seventy  they preferred other things as ends in and portion so my view is that under the broadest reasonable interpretation the board should not have read that limitation in from the spec read it in right that's the only and for those fingers is that element seven and i was one of my points they call the lens shape and they also called and portion seventy in the speci obviousness determination that hamilton does not render arlington's patents obvious based on the ship the lack of the shoulder and engaged meant are supported by substantial evidence in the record let me ask you this question do you think in this case that the broadest reasonable interpretation is actually different than the folks interpretation it's a that's a very good question your honor i don't think so actually i think in a court of law we would actually get the exact same instruction and that's because of the fact that the broadest range of reasonable interpretation is still has to be in light of the specification it still is looking at the claims but you also get you look at the dictionary definition which bridgeport fails to mention that actually the board actually  bridgeport's own dictionary definition that they submitted and it's actually one hundred percent consistent with that so the fact is that the broadest definition of and in this particular coring system is the same as what would be really the claim construction as well because the claims of the patent basically differentiates always between them and the end portion consistently through the claims the figures and how that actually how the product actually works as your hon asked they always refer to the set seventy as the lens shaped and and that is the only portion that actually engages the shoulder which is how the claims describe it so it wouldn't bridgeport's requests to basically conflate the term and portion with and not only does that not make sense based on how the invention is described because the fact that the first corps shoulder is basically created by the  terminating in the shoulder so it's basically in the bottom and although not required by the claims that it has to be in abutment but it does terminate in the in the shoulder the end of the fingers of the second core have to engage in difference between arlington's and hamilton inventions is so significant because of the fact that arlington's invention requires that engagement for its flash free and in fact in the five three eight every claim requires that there's a gap free engagement on the other hand hamilton requires that there's always a sliding fit because there are three cavities have to be in moveable but moving sliding arrangement they couldn't be more different with respect to how their ends how the fact that they don't have any and engaging any shoulders because it wouldn't ok i just wanted to address that because that's the first time that i've heard them actually make that argument you're honest i just wanted to respond to that so what carly were in town for a seventy two of the eighty six they say sixty six on this board is fifty two fifty and fifty two are connected in such a manner that the end portions fifty eight and seventy of each core fifty and fifty two respectfully are in contact with each other and there are no gaps between the joint portions of the first core and the second core and they are actually that it's clearly must be a typo because there's not there and they never actually engaged whatsoever with with fifty and fifty two so i think that's that must be that's the only aspect that we've ever seen in every other aspect the end is always referred to as seventy it's always referred to as the furthest chip or pound three point full thumb first core and the second four which is what's so important here is that they actually use and very consistently as always the furthe respect to the shoulder they said even if surface area thirty seven could be a shoulder it does not engage any end but they also say it doesn't actually meet the structural requirements of the shoulder so even if maybe even a family tent thought it was a shoulder that it wouldn't meet arlington's requirement of the of the of the shoulder because the shoulder has to be specifically between the tubular and portion as well and terminating in the shoulder and between the narrow and fortune again nothing that bridgeport's that hamilton for example would would have disclosed again because it wouldn't have worked and it's interesting that bridgeport now is throwing out this new modification that they actually spent  their brief on it because that is human as you mentioned not only does it wouldn't work but it goes against a force the essential principle of operation hamilton which is why these two inventions are so completely different so the factual findings of the board are clearly supported by the substantial evidence in the record and both the board actually and the examiner found the same thing that shoulder was not disclosed in hamilton and therefore harl thank your honour's council did point out the location in the specification they were first to and portions seventy which is the same as same element as the and seventy council did mention one thing in  inexplicable manner that the court or the board found that there was no disclosure never addressed renders obvious they knowledge renders obvious as important and they never addressed it we think that if they had addressed it they should have were compelled to find that it was obvious because really the invention as i said is discourse need to fit tightly together to having material invade between the cores and create flash that's exactly the invention in hamilton it's exactly what hamilton addresses that's the only thing that is set forth in the summary of the invention  and this idea of and in gauging shoulder is is really no more than a design choice the board found that changing this grinding by moving the grooves around would have been obvious just for the same reasons moving the you know creating a definitive and in shoulder a gauge meant across the across the entire surface man of arlington shows the entire end up biting the shoulder no part of the end does not about the shoulder and it seem like that's the direction they went in when they said look at the end in hamilton is is open to them all to cavity that doesn't detract from the fact that the edge of the end of hamilton engages itself yet on questions thank you thank you