i understand especially from your reply brief that you've withdrawn and are not challenging on the merits the final decision and you are challenging the failure to give leave correction to correct the priority problem but that you no longer raise and there are not before us any merits based challenges to the final decision is that correct yes you have a corr jurisdiction am i correct are you still pressing the point that you should be able to have review over the board ultimate decision on the re man we provided that's correct think it's disputed that that question is a for us the question is whether or not you were required to appeal the nd four decision on a you continue to protest whether or not you it was required to provide t to certainly retain jurisdiction over something i guess the question is what how could we have retained jurisdiction or had jurisdiction over this question about the impact of the  correction when we sent it back to the board we couldn't have both had jurisdiction at the same time right and that is what if what we get back remain and for the question of the impact of the subsequent certificate of correction what if emerson had lost what if the board had ruled in your fa would you say a well that was just an advisory opinion would you say that it was conclusive and therefore amateur and didn't have to file a notice of appeal the board  interrupt not apologize but read further right the sentence following the one you just read and said any appeal from the board's decision on this issue will be consolidated with this a p m so do you think questions out in a timely way if i can if you can't if you could prevail at the board has actually set it up for you we've got your certificate of correction at the time what been the cases that i cited in the reply was also another case where they did the same thing as united services automobile association what is your view of the impact of the prior version of the that was correct is it go on can you ever a rd it to get retroactive damages for the time it was in the fact what is your view of the the patent not the correct yes i'm trying to answer your question i think that during the i p r is the supposed to review the corrected version of the claim that's not what she's asked answer her question what we want to know is are you able to assert the uncorrected diligence to properly seek a certificate on three separate occasions mr davis let me bring you up to where we ended with your friends which is why why did we need to be here unless it's your view that the original claims before they were corrected can still be asserted retroactively otherwise it doesn't matter does that i mean the trick to get acted to wipe out those clear i mean that was the correction i asked for at the beginning of his argument that they're no longer appealing anything on the merits of regard to those three claims either they're only appealing that the p t o erred or abused its discretion procedurally by refusing to allow them to correct and at this point as well on the seventy the patent expired three months after that certificate of correction had issued and there'd be a very limited window in which anything could be enforced if that were even proper  everyone's time i don't understand why your client is paying you to do this i don't understand but why we're being asked to set aside time to do this i don't understand why supposed paying its attorney to do this it seems like a colossal waste of time these claims of the patents again if it which it appears to intend to do because it has appealed that file written decision it should be stopped from from doing so particularly in the uncorrected form because those claims were found on patentable by the board and that finding should be affirmed so just to go back to where we started i think judge moore made the point that it's just because they're you know kind of i think the order says that the court had retained jurisdiction over the initial appeal but as your honor pointed mr gonzales to that the last sentence and i know that order is key it says any appeal from the board's decision on this issue will be consolidated with this need to be a separate appeal or separate notice of appeal that subpoena needed to file that that guidance and instruction was reiterated in the board's decision on remand again board to issue an order addressing what if any impact a certificate of correction has on the final written decision in this case that sounds to me like an order asking the p t o to clarify in light of the fact that the  of correction issued after the final written decision does that moot the case does it you know eliminate need to resolve the case it sounds like a request by our court for clarification regarding what impact that certificate has on the final written decision why is that not part and parcel of the same appeal since we're asking the p t o to address the impact of this to get a correction when this final written decision which has been suggest that you can never ask a court for clarification and have it be part of the original appeal that would suggest that would suggest that if we ask the court to clarify that in order the issue clarifying would always require a nd notice of appeal every time specific portion of the original appeal was being remanded back down to be really reconsidered in light of the certificate of correction but if the read as a whole each of those different components of the order never as part of those that notice i did he mentioned that he was appealing the decision on remand and that that last sentence there in paragraph three of the other order says that any appeal and that would be the implication of it which would be you can't consolidate to i don't feel with a not appeal it's the consolidation of two appeal so i i certainly understand why your argument is that that last sentence makes should have put mr atkins all consult us on notice that he needed to file a notice of appeal but it's the rest of the order that unfortunately sort of for me at least makes me question whether the expressly stated earlier today in big us at least and when you have an ambiguous order it seems kind of unfair to close the doors multiple other chances to seek that certificate violate the a p a by deciding that issue yes or on the board didn't address the board didn't address any of the merits regarding the section two hundred and fifty five requests what the board was addressing was whether was whether place to avoid continue making the errors as it repeatedly attempted to request a certificate of correction and yet each time was being rejected by the physicians branch having to interrupt the i p r proceedings again and again and to some point the board had to say enough is me that would seem to be the the answer the certificate of treating the certificate of the fact that the created by having the p t deny the ability to correct then issue a final written decision and then the petitions people go ahead and issue a correction almost immediately thereafter it's kind of  like one hand might not be aware of what the other hand is doing to some extent or is that just completely false and that this is normal course and this is what should happen what a loser if i may answer the question your honor yes of course i just i heard the tone in the background it's clearly it's you know i think we understand the importance of the public would like us to operate as as a thing permit leave to file such a petition and that when they were talking about deliberate indifference you know they were talking about deliberate indifference not about the merits of the petition is do you agree is there anything you'd like to add to that to uncorrected claims are all  well this is what i've been trying to explain if the teeth would have permitted the corrections of the priority claims and the only reference asserted against these three claims would not in fact prior ot so the claims would be pa indifference that's inconsistent with the miss the weeks the gentleman the prosecution attorney that corrected the priority claim it's inconsistent with this declaration detail why th occurred and the reading the declaration it's clear none of them were deliberate  so we feel that that decision was wrong and that our client should be put in the position that it would have been had the piece had made the correct decision at that point in time ok thank you