our first cases this morning are hand do it again with a d c and rehab separate cases we put them together for argument your third all right then first will be mr casper's claim oh ok i think we have it now  it's it's not the substance of the rejection well the challenges were presented in the examiner did not adopt them and that is a decision at the village that falls under the statute in the rules that govern the broader language that is some kind of decision favorable to tackle this is this issue is common to both people steps and the statute and the rule simply state the the challenges were presented where we addressed each feature added in the additional claims pointed to where they were in the prior art and the examiner even adopted some rejections that were exactly the same as those challenges can i just turn into a really interesting from a difficult question because we've got so many claims here on the first case now your friend on the other side gets across appealing the rejection under  certain the claims but it's hypothetically we were to agree with them doesn't that dispose of the least a large number of your appealable issues i mean goes through as i understand now that anticipation rejection goes to claims one through nine twelve thirteen and it seems like there's a lot of them overlap between those and the one you are challenging on people there is a moment certainly there there are issues that don't overlap and charge we feel like that definition if there were then the crimes reasonable destruction which is the standard of control during the examination i specifically because it's going to consistent with more relevant technical definitions that are applying to the time cabletro on page eighty eight of the appendix in their decision they said they said that it would be understood to be a tube or a shaft and doesn't close so they were not saying it was a close on size they were saying that it was reserved four minutes for a bottle of my dress to claims claim one of the six to five and claim fourteen of the two to all claim one of the sixty five was rejected as i was using results in a small acute angle to take it over there flange now saber identifies his design drivers at column one lines thirty to thirty one of the summary of invention he says that ok to invite cables from either design the stage for design drivers are fundamentally different if not the versatile device one hard for all applications and symmetrical at both ends extends transversely over the top edge of the sidewalk our position is not your intended use we're talking about language in the body of the claim we're not talking about context in the preamble like a ball used for water specifically here the claim language relates and impacts the mounting structure on the claimed x a trot as well as the cable exit pathway surfaces again on the edges are you looking is structure that isn't already recited in the early parts of the claim i'm right well there is because if it's not additional structure if it's just for citing results and i'm sorry but i guess all of them want to be a little more explicit in terms of what you're saying so the claim language under sea says extend transversely over the top and if you look at saber for example we talked about his designs and you think in the absence of this mind with the rest of the structural language in the cream would allow include going to the wall yes i did it's very important what why is this not obvious to kind of return to something judge learned observed earlier you've got a trough there's really only two ways out of the trough right over the edge or through the wall wouldn't the bottom of the trough wall so and then if you look at figure three a standard he lives by this rule you notice that after he crosses over the flange the cable takes a ninety degree turn and he doesn't add anything in there not no a curve no vertical downspout he lives by his design drivers so for this vertical bastow we're talking about something that is not even in  and it conflicts with the design drivers you know the principles again and been in the dubuque a supply no one would be deterred based on the design drivers unstable not to do this and so that gets me to th another opinion that's on appeal said transverse means across and can be at any angle all that's just wrong because it gives new meaning to the word transverse any time you go nt shows the cable of the pathway extends out a perpendicular angle transverse that's the only reasonable definition and if you go to saber there's a just turn and just turn the surface of the cables and they said call it appears to be referred to as an upper servers because it is above the case so we were on the same page and even the examiner in the original prosecution sa when you start talking about how these two pieces work together and the last one probably isn't even part of the plane we're starting to get into the area of intended use and the word and even to read that limitation and so w draft here today i am a little concerned with the intended use findings and both the two twenty and the six twenty five because for one thing they appear in the body of the claim they do have a least minimal structural limitations and we've pretty much confined our intended use concerns  combination you start to define the structure and how it looks when it's connected and you're getting into trouble and that matters more obviously from an infringement perspective if you're selling  the track which is what you just did examiners right of appeal to this to you know appeal you know who's right with respect to these particular injections there just wasn't anything much in the record for the board to work with and it seems like the closest to present the rejections and then that there's a whole procedure for that it just happens to be that doesn't explicitly say for amended by adding claims but the procedure is the same way and i think this court's recent look at the mounting structure and then the surfaces the structural surfaces of the edge of drugs they decided features of the extra you have to look at those they have to cooperate with each other to accomplish th