science corps i may be saying that wrong versus a nervous system the only place in any independent claim where that inventive concept is found so it's not adding anything to the to the core and there's nothing that has to be added into this claim to affirm it it's all in the mean you're i think that you're strangely arguing with such clevenger over something that i don't even understand everybody agrees the preambles a limitation the fact that there's in a scene basis is irrelevant that's only going to whether it's a there's an a student basis goes to whether it's a limitation that's something we're bound by so what do you get to your point which it seems to me is the point that just because you're trying to move you along to which is you say the preamble should be limiting and in particular one of your arguments that seems quite important to you the geometric plane and whether it has to be one geometric plane at a time and so when you get to that with specificity what why does this preamble which is has a long a geometric claim necessarily limit the all the board did is look at the specification and say and admit the board emitted that the specification only depicts one plane at a time and repeatedly refers to one planet except for originally in front of your exam a long time ago to distinguish over the prior work with the beam or the laser why you said we're not that we are structured why exactly we said we're structured life so that i mean you wouldn't be able to go o are limited to structured why we reject that clearly they work out that you come back on the on the request of on the rehearing and you say what you haven't taken account of the preamble  aren't you somehow saying the preamble is helping to teach us that we have to restructure light the preamble does that and more than that for instance what's with the preamble and this and this is why appreciate that we were right all along that structured lives is required for the invention yes and for other reasons because you don't even have to get destroyed just like the majority of the original examiner that's true when you were trying to say what we were limited to that followed straight through when you're reminded on your rehearing look at the preamble you'll understand that and once you've done that then you're going to have to go back and geometric plane is essentially that it can only be one geometric plane at a time at a time i don't see how i mean at least one geometric claim your definition would read out the at least one no one  same time what why not that's that's that would you're not at the same time language would actually seem to me to be completely inconsistent with the claim language it's not that when you look at  ample but the body of the claim says along at least one geometric plane the body of the claim expressly says at least one that means it expressively covers two or three or four point to a set of images is perpendicular to a short duration spread the second set of images is at a forty degree angle change from the particular year you agree there could be an infinite number  first one is that there is no error in the claim construction were present despite and where they're going to do is go through and explain why there is no er drainage you mention even so that's one big reason for there's no error given that there is no error there's no reason for reversal but the second reason is even if you take provera says claim constructions which they say board should have made the result is still the same that the situation here is the same the prior art discloses the things that they are trying to reach where you're asking us to make that determination well i'm actually not i'm  construction is wrong and no time providing this court with the ammunition it would need to say and because of that different claim to destruction when i when i imply that i claim construction that look at the prior art i only have one conclusion that the claims are not in to support it and the claims are in fact obvious and they have not done that there's not a scintilla of evidence in this case which establishes that it was their burden to do so notwithstanding that we went ahead and we by way of example because there's forty seven separate rejections in this case by way of example we included in our brief on page eleven just by way of claim fifty and the reason we brought that to the court's attention is because claim fifteen expressively includes the limitation of a thin sheet of light that for various says should be read in the main cl careful and i think that's that's it and it's a two fifty five which is a single page from the prosecution history that they rely on as allegedly constituting the surrender and if you go to that page first of all your honor there's nothing in the record that actually tells us what claims work pending in the case of death one thing that sure is they're not the claims as they issued because the claims don't match up if you read the remarks there this claim one is the only independent claim so but putting that aside what they're saying in crunch make iran is crunch mit is the type of device where the laser beam if you used to they surrendered the scope during the original prosecution yeah i think i think the well let me try to answer your question why are trying to get it done the invention requires structure of life and you know they're not going to get what they want without it well i don't know what that's i don't think it does but even if you read it that way according to the sign that case you have to look at the this is a valid claim scope has to be clear and i think the term they use provirus decision made did mention of interest but they weren't they didn't focus or answering the question what i think the board thought that the preamble added to the claim was this concept the the requirement that the so they clearly had an obligation to them to find something new and then climb through that one there before and they should tell us what it is and then tell us why it is that their previous decision on the  they realize that and what what the board did on repairing your honor is responded to the points raised by crow various in their request for a rehearing in provera as articulated several arguments why the change in the preamble or the to determine ology from the preamble should affect the construction of the claim and the board goes through it they specifically identify one of those things for example is the is we've looked at and the board did look at the preamble in the original decision there was reference to the preamble in the original decision they look to disagree whereas in recognizes as a limiting factor well there i disagree or on a decided that the preamble needs one plane at a time and i don't i need to know don't i need to know what the claim means in the light of the preamble so that i can decide whether you are right or judge grant said his question was well this is the result the same on the prior art how do i know that until i know the correct interpretation well i think for the purposes of this appeal your honor the correct interpretation is give the benefit to prevaricate it's what they say the correct interpretation is so in other words we are here on appeal based upon from various a statement that the claim should have been interpreted according to to be x y and z and in this case that one plane means one at least one plane at least one geometric plane which is the claim language means only one plane and time that the term alumina it or should be construed as a thin sheet of light and that the term spray plume should need only a spray plume that comes from a drug delivery device and lasts one second that those are their three it's limited to one are siring it can be many but only one of the top that's different than the norm all comprising a language so you know at least one me of one or more they say are more more than one no question about in terms of the counting numbers they're just saying avatar well that's a different matter except if you say at one at a time that is still a limitation on the at least one that's not in the claim and it's it's constrain the basis for their argument about structured light but that's wrong or are because that a geometric plane doesn't refer to the illuminator or the light at all if you go back it's referring to the image it's saying the that's an additional limitation that trouble barris three said needs to be incorporated into the claim is there any argument about whether that limitation is met in the q s device and the anticipation reference or no i think there is no i think there's no a single image sync of one geometric plane at a time and it describes that the video camera takes of video image along that one geometric light and it with this the question about whether the iraq discloses the time evolution of the plume is a really a red herring because most of this prior art discloses a video camera and we're way over time so we're going to have to stop in that case it's a it's a steady flow it's just on the original time evolution and again what you have to do is go back to the specification i addressed the court to the pacing technologies case came out this year they