constitutes a bridge yes i don't understand it doesn't comport with any plain meaning of ridge that i can envision yes i think in order to understand it's useful to look at the prosecution history it no that's that's there there was an amendment it was entered into the record and so let me explain what happened and i think you may know what happened but i want to make sure that they look before you explain what happened but it is just telling you how in the world those little but i don't think that the that's what the board found the board found that there was a it was a race trip and the question is whether that race trip has to be continuous or can it be a series of inflatable bombs in this five seven five pan i know you wouldn't i promise of any time if that because we want to hear you have to say on that too but i just don't understand others any plain meaning that in caps like this and the only example that you've given your spec i mean everything i know about ridge suggests the continuity to the elevation not hers and your definition it seems when i look down the street at a series of spaced telephone poles that are evenly spaced you're going to tell me i'm looking at a ridge no under that circumstance i'm not going to tell you you're looking at a ridge and in fact i'm not going to tell you you're looking at a ridge when you consider for example the the barb's of samples what i'm going to say that you're looking at a ridge is if you see a a a single spot it's nevertheless a line of people i think in the same way a line of people less than a ridge know a line of people it's a lot like the nub of the thing it is a lot like the the not be bumpy things which is of course my point their call the blue ridge mountains because the trees on those mountains and that i supreme which is a chemical that causes the appearance of a blue haze and so when you look at the mountains there appears to be a blue haze continue with the running throughout the mountain line and it's the blue haze which is called the blue ridge has nothing to do with the mountains no thank you and i apologize if this is distracting because i don't want to be distracted from the main part of our argument and in order to understand our argument it is absolutely critical that you understand what happened the prosecution and if you'll permit me i would like to just take a moment and explain what happened the prosecution because in particular there was an original claim it was a deep and replaying and it had the being fully anticipated by the samuels prior art and what's important isn't is what happened next because what happened next is that in response to understand the point that you're making is that is that inventor was willing to make an amendment that you think would have supported your view with this plant construction but but but that amendment was never answered and in fact the claim was allowed without that amendment and the board found that therefore it was not going to find that to be particularly meaningful is when are we supposed to disagree with that conclusion yes your honor and here's claims but there was an interview and that language was it wasn't just removed they added other limitations specifically they added a negative limitation to the claim which the mr samuel dr examiner or what the applicant believes you don't have to speculate very much when they don't show up in the final those words that you're relying so heavily on don't show up in the final and i would agree with you if that that word was just taken out of the claim and that was that was the end of that then obviously the the examiner and dr samuels agreed that that work was not necessary but that's not what happened what happened is that word was removed and other limitations rather to the claims to examiner interview and after the fact in the exam in when they got to district court they were arguing about what happened that interview and in that case this court made it very clear to raise it then and by not raising it they have acquiesced if i acquiesced to that term being a rich and and judge more perhaps i don't know exactly what  happened to the applicant and it wasn't a record so we can't we can't speculate and the reason i say that is the patent prosecution history has a very important function of serving the public notice about what the patent means and what it doesn't mean this is part of the intrinsic evidence which is some of the most valuable evidence as and i would argue that it's that it shows the opposite that it shows that  even if someone is willing to make that change that that change wasn't deemed meaningful when and now you know what the original examiner might have thought or might have gone back and forth with is not as important to me as what the board following and this is in response to the same argument i'm making right now they said the board's decision on the in rehearing the board clarified and said that it did not adopt cry that there's proposal because it was inconsistent with the specifications description certain french or ridges as raised strips that statement is interesting because it can't possibly be true and the reason i say that is the word strip does not appear in the specification the weight strip does not appear specification and so what the board is doing is they are they are they're not considering the file history and as this board said in both the parts on case and also other please courts i think the issue of this continuous or discontinuous file history is odd for a couple reasons most importantly because it really does not need bearing on the ultimate decision or to the board found that the basically right into the argument that your opponent is making with respect to the proposed a man it's a bit odd that he somehow they're using the word acquiescence to a broader claim but in this case the board correctly found that it really didn't inform them on and when i read in the brief being something that wasn't in the record i think of a ridge like that i thought too that it really was a spine that was basically want to continue responding which is what people think of the ridge and that is how the order viewed samuel say five one are discrete right there not a continuous ridge not a continuous ridge in fact the bird referred them as recesses in many parts of the decision for that reason because they really aren't something they could inflatable too but they didn't the drawings didn't show what it's described in a way that doesn't indicate that they're inflated and we had experts and we had witnesses and this was a trial they had no experts they had no witnesses and the board rel inflatable car no would you consider treads on a tire to be inflatable treads because they sit on inflatable tire no and that was really directly at the heart of the sting wishing what todd shows which is a solid you know rubber seal or factor but round piece they're not inflatable they sit on a device that i suppose is inflated but they're not themselves inflated over truces and that goes to the very heart of the ultimate decision that they matter and that's why i believe  i just have two quick points i'd like to make the first one is is fairly trivial but the reason the board referred to what i'm calling a ridge is the reason they refer to it as recess is in fact in the sam eight five one prior art they they are recesses until they are inflated and the purpose of those recesses is very important you have a recess and in the prior art you have a bar and when you position the stand in its proper location you don't want that bar scraping against the wall and so you have a recess and then when you inflate of course the the recess pops out it's called domed it pops out expert dr clarke confirmed that the the the that the belt actually does make connection but but the point i want to make is that judge moore even even if you don't think about the problems that one might have that are it's a problem that's being solved by the patent suit and that is a bar creates creates damage to the human body and so what is the obvious thing to do the only thing to do well you take off the bar in your place it was with something else you replace it with something that's not going to be everybody and in the simple the simple example if those if those series of bombs inflatable bumps are in fact the ridge then it's easy to put on you put on the todt it's put on the other hand if you if you want to use the pad ring the ring is not the inflatable rich the ring is just what you want to replace the barbs with so if you are going to do that what would you do you would of course have to modify the prior art samuels to have a a ditch if you will to accommodate that ring and then you would pump it up and the rings would pop out it's also important to have that if you have a rough surface if you have a something with todd you want to take advantage of the of the invention of the sam as a five one prior are mainly that is to protect the surface while you're moving this stent in and out and if you move the stand in a now and there's interest rough surface or there is knobs you want to avoid the fact that you might want to protect the surface in both inventions doesn't mean that they're doing it in the same way well what what samuel's prior art teaches us is that what you're using to do ultimately make contact with the human body can be protected from the human body while well you're moving this thing in and now and so the problem is those barbs are no good those barbs cause problems then you replace it with i mean we submit a lot of crime but a cat in particular you just substitute that for salmons but you still take the advantage of samuel's you don't forget about the advantages of samuel's namely having that device retracted that that seems to me to be that simple analysis where you're you've got a mechanical device you're simply replacing one mechanical device for another and and in fact the board had no problem with that in the institutionalization of the problem well or were way over our time so we have to stop