or and and when i say tiny i mean very very tiny and i'm sorry to have littered my brief with exclamation points everywhere when talking about being so so incredibly small but you almost have to change your mode of thinking in the red  believe the baseball brennan putting through holes channels into material back and i looked at them and what i found out is that both what they talked about is that in that one area where i mentioned it was through the mask now what in between the laser and the membrane and the through holes are in the mask and not the membrane and that's what he's discussing in both the situations one of one of them one of the discussions of a through hole was that that's that's right however brennan is not discussing through holes and in terms of creation of a membrane brennan is discussing the rustling of a surface and it can have and it can go all the there fixing the ablation to do it and it's there using ablation value that definitely cuts through the entirety of the surface to create a very very very small  membrane membrane channel and doing it at a range that brennan does not disclose we're not saying that people are not cutting holes the membrane that's what membrane is that's what all membranes are my client is doing in a very very special way at a very at a very precise ablation value in a way that would sort of court and where we're fixing the evolution value to be such that it not only does it fairly create a hole case law for the unlimited range or nearly an unlimited range of britain sort of offhandedly mentioned that by the way in order to make a hole you must use the amount of power that it takes to make a hole we don't consider this very profound and offhand it's limitless it does not have an upper range limits and in cases like this court has previously when this court has previously dealt with ranges that the threshold so you've got to he's got to be more than that so the board in the examiner looked at that state and said well because it discloses an infinite range and your range isn't that infinite range because you are making a whole not simply blast a hole over and over and over again because when you do that you are right your true at every time you hit a spot with a laser beam you are making it more and more court i think that that their line of analysis agree with what we're asking for in saying that and in an infinite range of values it's really it's wrong and this place procedurally to put the onus of supplying pretty callous onto the applicant at that at the very end a step and it describes that if there's an unhopeful range unlimited range of values so there are two parts of britain the first part in the park that the board and the examiner use was that offhand remark were just to make a hole you must use enough energy to make all and then brennan describes the the surface ruffling that he is doing and he gives pal use for that now if you and we dealt with this in the brief now if you were to look at the values that brennan describes that he is using those result in features that are many thousands of times greater than the results that i client is getting therefore if you look at it as if you look at brennan as if you take the part that has infinite range yes we fall into that but we say that that's irrelevant but if you look at the part of britain where he is doing the service running and he does give the details then we do not fall into that so it's almost on one hand into that range all into it but we think that's procedurally wrong on the other hand if you look at the actual variables that he's getting for what he is doing we don't fall into are we are creating membranes that are thousands of times smaller and his mistakes  you know when he's talking about the deviations what he's saying is that we're making mistakes that are this big difference from one together and i remember answer so much smaller than not even the features that he's making but the mistakes from th claimed range falls a wholly within that range then it's generally considered that it's not it's probably obvious but we believe that genetics institute stands for a proposition is different if it's a  warning or owners thank you may please the court well i wanted to begin by talking about a couple questions and you would have to tell us counsel there was some discussion about whether or not brennan discloses through holes well let me interesting because you know although connor did say that he was going to withdraw a claim sixty nine p to have actually said in the footnote in on page one of their decision that they were going to consider it because they hadn't seen the amendment yet to forty three through two forty eight there are actual visual representations of through falls through the substrate so it's very clear that brennan does both surface texturing and through holes and that's not give rise to incubation of facts which are said to diminish the quality of the holes that are being drilled what i want to point out is that there isn't fact no evidence that there is any difference between the claimed bench in any of the prior art in that regard and brennan specifically mentions as well that if you use short pulses you're not going to have he propagating through the non ablated part of the substrate so i think that that's unlikely the cite for that in case you want to look it up is column thirteen lines fifty nine thru sixty five brennan which is on appendix two fifty five i couldn't find any place where it was not turning argument well that's true i think we pointed out in our brief that there was there was basically no evidence whatsoever that was a rebuttal evidence provided to the prime facie case that was made by the examiner and the final thing i wanted to point out was that he he talked at the end of his argument about how small the size is compared to two of his invention of his clients invention versus that in brain and there's absolutely no claim limitation whatsoever in the application ratio draws closer to one to one the diameter of the whole of the string but the board never really considered the diameter of print and the diameters of the other part are considered down and in doing that they erred additionally to be of the significance of having the rows of membranes equally side and one of the things i tried to emphasize that for larger batteries there are so many membrane channels that statistically they will be approximately the same or within a variance but that's for running you know for toys or electronics or something that the so that you can feel or hold but when you're developing machines that are comparable to say a grain of rice or hearing aids well it may be necessary that you're not firing off thousands of ions through membrane channels but instead you may need to activate ten fifteen or in extreme cases one ion to remembering channel at a time and when you do that with the regularity is not controlled by statistics any more the regularity is controlled by the actual physical banner of what it is you've done and in cases where you're creating a battery that requires regular performance for some sort of critical function if you're not if you don't want to destroy a very very small  there should be regularity in the in the membrane channels to ensure that there is a regular amount of energy output and that's the invention that was conceived of my client for claims so it can do seventeen that it just is not down in the