argument sixteen to seven four seven night usa versus cam we're still here that's what position that the components of that little simply are connected in a fashion such that they cannot be disassociated from listening and the reason for that is in calling for it does tof it does address a preferred environment that's the only embodiment this disclosed in the application as it relates to the components of the little simple and it's also you can see just so that you in the range of ordinary uses which include feeling drinking and claiming that thirty five through forty five that says that it cannot be disassociated or misplaced from a little simply it is connected at all times as it is other language that that describes and is talking about in that section of the specification is talking about operable position to use position and what we're talking about specifically as it relates to connected is the lid is simply and the components of the little simply the bore below pointed to the word connection is used in the  six were going to change it to and we believe and means it's always meant no i don't believe they they did not say that and is that the t v and the backup they argued to the examiner that yes  want women to replace and but just because exams are made that finding doesn't stop ignite from later saying we said it's connected at all times and the panty was very clear and unequivocal in the patent specification this connects all times and we're now saying the disconnect at all times consistent what we've with what ignited said it during the entire prosecution of this patent so it's not it's not an it's not in itself a situation where the panties coming back later has narrowed the claim is an argument that depends on your claim construction i thought at least you made the assertion that you defeat anticipation even under the board's construction not even of the border construction  the words construction if the board if a nonpermanent connection is is is a is a proper construction if connection if connected as used with regard to those specific components of listen really is a nonpermanent connection to ignite to come forward evidence to rebut that assumption of obviousness and the way that the the way that the decision can be read is that there's a double standard created here the board says very specifically  obviousness or i'll paraphrase but basically the board says it's obvious because it's obvious and we're not going to tell you why wouldn't they want that the reason is just because generally speaking you can make a change and then it goes on to say that that that particular technical details of of the of the modification that would have to be made an issue and that those don't even need to be provided or not necessary to this case but then it goes on and this is a double standard it goes then on to fault big night for not providing technical persuasive evidence to rebut modifications that were never even defined by the board or or ignite or t v or cable that for example the proposed to the just the broad statement modifications that were posed were incorrect and that there was no no support for motivation in this case but the course should have put the burden on on camelback in the first instance to prove that think of a larger issue and one that we pointed out to the board in our motion to exclude the location of the spring and without going too much into the details of exactly what was provided by god slocum because again the board speed can move things from one place to another and then and therefore would be motivated to try to solve that problem in kind of the same way you did which is get the thing out of the way and then a person  testified that someone would already believe that the thirty degree angle that was provided in lean was sufficient for cleaning so there would be no motivation to open it up for a did additionally for additional cleaning to see th move back to the operable position in a cleaning setting such as that so again that evidence shows that the see it would not have been arrested in moving to ninety degrees based on this slocum explained in his initial declaration why you would make this change how you would make this change and that it was simple we're not talking about rock of sign of just the words how that he explained how you would make it you know if  modify this very simple spring mechanism which is of molded plastic flat spring he changed it from a from a straight to a curved spring but that's what has the subsequent drawing show about in terms of the excel in explaining that we had provided sufficient proof sufficient evidence to meet the preponderance standard the board said we don't need to consider this i do want to point out that that ignite had an opportunity to take a second deposition of dr slocum they had an opportunity they made motions to exclude they made times after the second after the second declaration we had we got together again for a subsequent deposition both were included in the in the appendix they made arguments to exclude they made arguments due to a challenge dr slocum's qualifications those were rejected there was argument out oral argument the transcript of the argument is here they've had an opportunity and then when the panel when the board came down with its final written decision ignite then again went and said you've missed one you either misapprehended or ignored our evidence and you improperly did this in the board said no we didn't we consider jor evidence we just found it on persuasive and the reason that it was the technical evidence they presented was  unpersuasive because it didn't address the kinds of changes that dr slocum had described yes in somewhat general terms a change to the size or shape of the spring they simply adjusted one factor and they set it up for failure and dr and mr steiner could not fathom how this could be done which is what led dr slocum to provide a very detailed explanation of the steps he would take to do this as for hindsight reconstruction this notion at any time we're doing this analysis in a case like this it's always hindsight reconstruction because we're trying to put ourselves into the shoes of what a person artisan would have known at the at the at the relevant time period in this case two not quite sure which of the numbers figure numbers is for preventing the high speed water in the dishwasher from closing the closing of the cafe so why would through the interference for remember this is the this is the same their same expert testified if you happen to know or have i guess i'm looking at year nine which everybody seems to be using  closing i think this is the assertion is that once the once the my eyes are not very good with the the opening at thirty four where the tippit forty seven hits i think is the assertion that that provides an these interference fits are so light that you could expect a forty two to fall out of forty one but not this so if you're if you're worried about interference fits or a fit that's designed to go back and forth you would be interested in designing a device that would be more propped open so it would lessen the less of the opportunity for it to go through to push clothes secondly dr slocum also testified in declaration that this were also provided additional manual cleaning access to the lever in case i think he used the phrase it was phrase it was extra good by having greater access to the insides with a wider opening so there were two subproblems being solved by the larger o now what do you say about that ignited that we should disbelieve that evidence that's been presented so they presented evidence that the board simply found on persuasive and finding it on persuasive doesn't mean they've shifted the burden of proof it simply means that they've dimension when and then in doing so in a way that's designed to fail isn't responsive to to a simple change to the shaping of the spring dr slocum demonstrated that after the fact but they didn't need to because they found that the initial response the offer the evidence offered didn't meet that the question presented and because it didn't meet the question presented it was on persuasive and because mr steiner couldn't fathom a way to do this it was unpersuasive and it's fine to say it's unpersuasive that's how you assess the evidence whether it's our evidence was persuasive their evidence was unpersuasive that's the phrasing and i you know that the board clearly held that we had met the the evidence standard they did so in the decision and they did so again in the denial of rehearing and so to second guess them and say they were holding them to a different standard i think is inappropriate here because they said what they were doing and they said they agreed with the reasoning and found our reasoning and evidence persuasive and they found their reasoning in arguments and evidence and persuasive that's what courts in fact finders and arbiters you every day when they  with respect to connected i want to i don't do this often but the a stock of argument i think is important because festo deal with it and it says quite clearly and i'm reading in the supreme court reporter version of eight hundred forty it says a but it's a different thing it is quite a different thing but it's a bar to recapturing material that you've given away and that is that's the broader proposition of festa i believe because that's what that that's the language that i just read is a direct quote from the supreme court and what they did here is they amended which which was not about playing construction it was not about killing and we have on a number of occasions made clear for i think reasons that are and subject to a different standard than that prosecution has to stop which you presume from having made them and that one of the reasons you can presume it is that you can in fact go and get a new claim in a continuation application of the very same material because at that point literal infringement and not only quibbles offense but what we're referring to here and i want to be very clear is the examiner said it gave them a notice of rejection based on the prior art because they said connected unmovable because he just and he said if you wanted to be connected while movable you have to say connected while movable and they did now they could have chosen they could have chosen to stand on their prior language their prior claim language and to and appeal the rejection we're right you're wrong but they didn't they proceeded in obtained a patent on the basis of an amendment that was made to  two in a circumstance that gives rise to a stop which is just another reason why they shouldn't be permitted to come back now in our view that connected and movable means connected at all times and non remov e the i think the court pointed out earlier but but this is one body mint one of thirty more than thirty cases in which they say in an embodiment and they describe this but they don't use the phrase in a clear and precise way that tells you that every time we use the word connected we mean a permanent anon removeable and there are a number of times they use connected in the patent that clearly are not permanent and so they're asking you to adopt a claim construction that means permanent and non removal non removable in one case but not in another so for instance the trigger member is connected to the ceiling well if that's a permanent connection there could never be a cleaning position because it would always be permanently connected the lid is connected to the container if that permanent connection this product can't work we need to take the lid off in order to introduce liquid to the container the board's construction was entirely appropriate using the broadest reasonable construction concluded the propre only that it includes both permanent and nonpermanent connections but even if you agree that it includes something more there is the argument and the board specifically found that to streamline discloses a permanent connection there is no evidence in a strolling that the operating arm falls out that the trigger member falls out  the sole evidence they relied on at the board was their review their experts review of the of the drawing to find it based on a specification that it would slip out and fall out once it was taken off the lead and as the court knows that's not a proper use of the patent drawings for no dimensions are provided and that's what they were trying to do i've see enough space so this thing will fall out and because that was basis and the board discounted that there is no there there can be no reasonable dispute that in fact we have a device in new strolling that shows the operating on are connected in the cleaning saying we are doing this we are shifting the burden anecdotally one of the board members that was on our case was on the middle case so we know that this is what they were doing you read the decision it's very evident that that they were putting the burden on a ni to come forward evidence and it's important because if you look at the evidence if the board actually done had applied the burdens correctly it would have looked at the evidence that came back and submitted and found that there was no a yes what do you refer proper that that should be proper that shifting the burden to come to the to the pattern or to come forward evidence after the institution decision is the proper mechanics for the the trial process because it simplifies it i suppose was that the reason that what we're doing and this is before that system came out so we know that they have not been corrected if you will but you know makes a difference because if the board had looked at the evidence it would have come to the conclusion its