filter and then just another connection at the other end of the filter which just overlapped the filter it seems like such a small thing to say why not redo the other connection so it likewise but i would note that the  patent office initially issued a one or two rejection and with through that rejection based on the argument that the connection means does not overlap the fields were great but with seems like such a small lead so that's why they chose obviousness i'm wondering that the board addressed only the first part specifically the board found that  board did not identify any of them and anything to which common sense would apply it didn't identify a known problem that didn't identify a known technique that you would apply common sense to solve in a particular aboard the board found that there was no on expected result that was all predictable the modifications whatever modifications to the existed were entirely predictable it was a matter of common sense what's wrong with that i think i think the board's finding was it was narrower than that and that the board found that it was that the connection mains in the new configuration retain current function predictably retains its power but it specifically declined to find and made no findings regarding what other new functions or new unexpected results might might be yielded from the new configuration and that question is specifically to acquired by the particular secret of the slash case or quote found that the or that it appears that the board found that the operation of the device does not change the very next sentence and in the paragraph after that they're more clear in that they're talking about when they say that the to operation of the device does not change what they're talking about is the retention of the prior function of the connection and so the connection is retains the part of our function but even even more than not so the question of whether or not the off  billeted of the device or offer non obviousness the device is non obvious because it is a new device in the palm office is not provided any reason by which one would modify the mission reference to achieve tweak had no benefits whatsoever and yet the patent office said well it's obvious that change has no benefits but you're saying we are not rely on the shortening of the device so absent reliance on the shortening you modification of the clamp is irrelevant because it doesn't change the operation of the device you're not meeting open court state you're not relying on the shortening so there is no reason to make the change meant what i mean to say is that just because short an ability and a shorter device is not in the claim does not preclude the fact that there is no reason for one skilled in the art to make the necessary modifications well if that if that feature is not in the claim why is that it at all relevant to this analysis there is only relevant because the particular sentence that the board relies on for for obviousness in this case now sure claim i assume when you when you make that statement almost seems like you're admitting that if the shortening had been there this would have been a different case but i imagine if i did i think it takes to put it there it would have been arguing that it was  to make change that inherent problems maybe unexpected result in iran or something predictable if that were in the clan the board you know might have said that we think the word you know accurately noted and what's in the claim most that this claim is very broad it just has the detachable connection means moving from the michelin device just a little to the left or a little to the right and no shortening is required in the claim no space a perfect example is their figure two which is opposite page three of our brief their claim really locates the connector but does nothing nothing with the space side you know it might even be longer than michelin's it has quite a bit of space so shortening by this applicant's own application does not necessarily happen their representative figure so something with plenty of space in it so the board was right on with if you don't have it in the claim it's not and you can amend your claim during prosecution even crafted more narrowly as to what you are now arguing or were arguing to the board and the board you know we think very wealthy handled their shortening argument by it's not in the claim maybe put it in the claim but it's not the claim there figure supports that quite clearly motivation one would have to make the necessary modifications and it leaves no room to assess whether or not the new invention gives rise to new and unexpected results the board's decision was was based on there's certainly nothing in k s r to that effect restricting the obviousness analysis so as not to can not to consider motivation for unexpected results or anything of that sort yes there are but i would suggest that to the extent that the functionality of the device of the claimed advice is going to play a part in the obviousness determination then doc assessment functionality should conform to the new and unexpected results from the new arrangements and the board specifically declined to address that question