type term or just see i don't think that's your best argument go ahead if you want and misinterpreting them i mean that you've got some difficult statutory questions here regulatory questions i don't think inside the the original three year period and outside it are going to be treated differently doesn't the statute is silent was regard to how our cities are treated after the  what the right terminology is but they didn't have to do with watching the clock and stopping it but rather had to do with an arithmetic total and to read this as as saying the total period from application to issu has to add up to three years minus certain stuff which would get them to exactly the position that they haven't fact taken but without this sort of awkward effort to to attach the indented items list of items to what came after as opposed to what came before so my question is suppose i thought that that it was amenable to that reading what else in the statue tells us that would be a bad way of reading that provision welp the dispatcher because of the way it's structured jokes you have to be one which talks about the the way in which which has to be stopped and once it gets to three years that and it's of no interest anymore that it seems to make doesn't run into the problem of of of of you know potential inconsistency with for our cities whereas for one point seven of two it is applied to the trigger provision that we call so the way we have it when you look at the two stacked and you read that in effect when they are combined together and applied you are applying the r c e to both of the trickery and to the remedy provision which contradicts whole intent of the statu it makes it clear that the p g those interpretation is not consistent and not or where it was certainly not carefully analyzed under skin or even though it was a throwaway sentence  uncomfortable making it and it is not deserving of any consideration because it is not even close to being reasonable so as a result of it not being reasonable as a result of it not or procedure and a separate statute of limitations for the preachments considerations and there is a separate procedure a separate statute of limitations for the issuance consideration and it comports with the way that well that's the question stop you know what would be the sad thing to say is a within six months we're going to figure out what the term is for the respective you only partly figure out what the term is but what sixty years can whether if you look at the plain language it makes sense and does not yield an absurd result when the so i guess i'll go another way maybe asking asking the question that i'm not sure if identical is why isn't that certain result and therefore what may have and persuasive analysis of in this context what is absurd and comes to the very logical conclusion that absurdity for it linguistic absurdity where a language just doesn't match up where they are going with the inconsistency of not absurdity of the nature that well this doesn't necessarily make sense and if i was thinking about it with a clean slate i would have done it slightly differently and perhaps with the most subsection sol taking that language standing alone it's perfectly clear that the hundred ninety day period would apply to any determination made by the director you have to go on and   this is not an agent of the government is ever intended that judge that we're dealing with the four corners of these three times when we're doing strictly with this issue determination it's called procedures for patent term adjustments and it gives the director the authority to issue regulations to all patent term adjustments their argument depends on only looking at for for web for any patent term adjustment and if you take that seriously it suggests that the world of patent term adjustments that is must be a world in which it is at least logically possible that can't be the final because things do change after that time i have now after all tolling arguments and taking arguments and i'm happy to address the court has any question but this this just  would otherwise be barred no you are an equitable holding in simply as i said it's not appropriate here this is this kind of change in the law not a kind of change in law where where any court in this very question bench hall where you get equitable tolling for that kind of change in a line you don't get to wait for somebody else to make the claim and when the wall bike by court construction wasn't my intention either my point is just that you have to bring your claim within the time limit and if you don't bring your claim within the time limits you can't come in later after somebody else makes the argument and when but not normal well if they're you know are eating your situation usually follow notice of rejection where none of that would have happened at all there would have been no period a notice of allowance had cattle issue as it was only because of the period is not as though they say the three year period stops with and you're dealing with tell every duty dealing ours with the same types of procedures same types of results so for all those reasons i concur that the time between noticeable alex and issuance under the alternative exception if after the notice several hours the examiner actually took some affirmative action to reopen is or examination i think one of those sort of days if there was a return to examination which is cannot they did not review in unambiguous actually the right way they were doing a b overlap inappropriately and that in the minds of tandy's was again that were issued and which opened up possibilities to challenge the p t o was improper interpretation of the statute so when we talk about the counsel for the government talks about venture polls we're talking about two different theories we're not talking about a claim a pool which is you should have known you had a point of action instead we're talking about activist issues is it equitable under the factual circumstances presented to no ar that they should be allowed to toll the statute he and ending unequivocal position of the government for over ten years in the red federal register notice on their web site public inaction by the government are factual circumstances which should permit the ethical tolling here and finally just with regard to the d l taking issue with the think that it's important to look at that entire fray any phrase consumed any time consumed by continued examination of the patent requested by the act and not whether they're actually examining at the moment or not