single claim construction issue relative to the two four four patent in that issue is whether the board the p tab when it construed the claim term inlet within the wall part of the team like is that the question that's exactly right and i think that the answer to that question starts with the definition of the coin term within four to create with your construction of that term did agree with our construction of that term in that the language that they used to define that term but they have basically misconstrued it by applying it in a way that the the top wall is covered and falls within the scope of the definition that is dumped it was not a question of claim construction well i think it is because they've basically the p temp has construed the language in let in in line with in being inside a certain area or space as including within its hoop inlet that's only in the top a so it has basically further construed the language that it gave for the term within and that was era and the reason why it was error the hymns was the fact that e is not a status a ballmer e is a line of demarcation for a space in the same respect the top law is used in claim one of the two for fo imola that is in the specs the p tabs decision is very clear with respect to the three pieces of prior art that none of those pieces of prior art if lease for the purposes of their decision discloses an  construe the term within and then it further construed it by suggesting that the meaning of that language includes an inlet only in the top what it is a coin construction issue and creators has agreed to that fact in its brief so it is a claim construction issue and the really the crux of the issue is the key tab and going back to the judge's earlier comment relied heavily on the clean language that suggests that the top chamber as having a top wall that does not mean specification the figures and the way in which even creatures has described the teachings of the specification that is an unreasonable conclusion but  them means that the inlet has to be in the space yet but in order to avoid all of this why didn't you just and then claims to be clear well as a matter of fact that attempted that footnote which one is improper but two they state creatures are called map creatures states that this attempt to the men has no effect on the issue that's before the panel it's completely irrelevant  has no impact and that is creature statement in a footnote in their brief to this court so going back to your question i think we're the ones that get to decide whether it relevant here if that  a footnote i was raised from pages three of their right well that is true that creatures raise the issue that an amendment could have been made but they also acknowledge that that amendment that in fact attempted to be made has no impact on the court's analysis of this issue and so the reason why in this particular situation in the context of the two four four pat t s conclusion that the chamber having the top wall means that the top law is part of the same structure that is the chamber i'll explain why that's incorrect but also explain why it's completely irrelevant it's completely irrelevant so first why it was improper and therefore it's not a reasonable construction pete had to take first of all let's just take a look at a fence of a yard that is a fence or a york having a fence does not mean that the fence is part of the yard means it's the outer demarcation of the yard much like in this case i don't know if i've bought real property and the description included offense i would consider to be part of the property and i agree with you completely it would be part of the property but you would not understand the fence to be part of the your it's not the yard it's part of the property it's much like the top was described in the two four four patent the chamber is describe as having a top wall it has a top line of demarcation and i think the issue is really clarified at the bottom of page seventeen in the top of page eighteen of creators own briefs where it is states that figure six depicts an inlet that is at least a part of it is bolo the top wall and a part of it is above the top within the chamber but also just but also describing the opening as being in the top wall so the inventor knows very clearly that there are two separate structures the chamber in the top wall c creators and company i will come back to a couple of points that the council made but  that the board's construction of the claim limitation quote in that with any popcorn receiving chamber in quotes is improper the board however properly applied the broadest reasonable interpretation standard which applies in a patent reexamination the words construction of the of the limitation and within the poc were receiving chamber was based on the express claim language that presents no one fairness to the pad an owner who can amend his or her claims to be to more clearly define the claim subject matter gold medal chose not to amend its claims in a timely manner and address his direct argument of why is it that the n let which is just in the tot is not within the space the space includes talk all which is a structure now when we look at space we're looking at that term in isolation we need to look at the claim limitation as a whole the limitation of the whole says and that with then a popper receiving chamber ok the poc or receiving chamber is defined as having a based on this construction the bird concluded to prior including the g m manual as well as a creator's diplomat popcorn manual disk that disclosed openings  the words construction governmental raises several arguments that find no basis in the specification or the claim language indeed what we've heard about space we've heard about boundary when we look at the element we simply have the claim that says the popper receiving chamber has a cop wall and we have an inlet within a proper receiving chamber therefore an ellipse within the top wall meets the claim limitation and within the block or receiving chamber s through the harmful air issue although go mental contends that the words construction was in resulted in harmful air go metal makes no attempt to show that the alleged air was in fact harmful because the fact of the decision below which is this court's precedent that is gold medal makes no attempt to show that under their proper construction the pr considered by the board would not have anticipated or rendered obvious the claim limitations as issue because the board's construction of the claim limitation and that within a proper receiving chamber while i was simply say that if the inlet extends below the top wall and above the top wall there's a portion of that elite that is within the opening of the top wall it exists in the opening  thirty eight to forty two we raise that simply to clarify any confusion but the attempted amendment though does illustrate that when gold better wanted to clearly define the location of a structure relative to the top wall it knew how to do so it chose not to with respect to the eminent however government would have this court now read this limitation into the im prosecution history further supports their argument that the board erred in its construction the prosecution history at issue is simply a description of a kettle and killed in a prior reference namely the date reference this description of the prayer has again no bearing on the claimed construction at issue moreover i should point out that nowhere in the cited prosecution history does it constitute a clear and unambiguous definition atop wall claims three and five are merely dependent claims that depend either directly or indirectly from claim one and all that they do is further the imitate the limit the position of the inlet in ways that are entirely consistent with the board's construction should affirm the board's construction of this claim limitation i would like to see if you a few things briefly if i may regarding harmful error go middle contends that it only needs to say that the claim construction resulted in an armful there rather than make a showing of harmful air this court's precedent requires a showing that the error was in fact harmful because of the fact that the decision below gold medal has not made such a showing gold medal has not demonstrated that under its proper claim construction the prior art considered by the board would not have resulted in the claim imitation being anticipated or rendered obvious would wish to submit three remainder of its time to the court thank you entered in that portion of the grief gold medal simply was identifying the fact that with respect to the kettle the claim discusses light in claim one it has a special relationship with the chamber the kettle also has a special relationship with the top wall clearly treating those structures as separate states right but claim your own case twelve and the specification make it very clear that any interpretation that allows the inlet to be in the top wall is inappropriate and unreadable creatures own breach at age four as absolutely no discussion of an inlet in the top wall and the reason is it would be nonsensical under this analysis and under the p taps decision to radically the kettle in the could be entirely in the top wall part of the chamber it would be an inoperable popper because the kettle could not dump and we raised this in our opening brief and that goes