should be overturned for at least three alternative independent reasons first no reasonable inst interpretation of the claim language in the context of the full specification could removable setting tool this is that's a fixation repeated li refers to this that setting tool being removed and it identifies separate third party setting tools that could be used in conjunction with the claimed invention furthermore the inventor disparaged the prior design with an integrated setting tool because it had quote unquote a high profile in contrast to the goal of the  five three invention to achieve a point of haute low profile the only way to do that is through a separate removable setting tool because and neither of the challenge claims in this case is in tis a painted by the prior art which fails to disclose a lockdown mechanism separate from the setting to all the board's decision should be reversed for that reason alone second no reasonable interpretation of second lockdown a second lock down mechanism that uses mechanical locking to lock the mandrel into the operative position even in figure five where the hydraulic piston is used to initially str in power in a gracious is that particularly in a system where you have the two different standards that the board has a responsibility to explain why the district courts claim construction and there is no dispute we're talking about even if it was adopted by the district court to a sponsor it is the district court's construction and there's no dispute about that that the board had an obligation at at a minimum to explain why that construction does not come within the broad reasonable interpretation stand well that i mean i thought that that's what the board did i mean the board pointed out that it was not proposed by either party the board actually looked at it but it didn't accept it correct it didn't accept it but i don't think the board explained as power integrations requires why particularly specifically the district court's construction did not come within the broadest reasonable interpretation but i think regardless of power power integrations i think our primary arguments is that is that the court doesn't even need to reach the peregrinations point because the instructions adopted by the board in this case are simply beyond even the broad is reasonable interpretation center but as an alternative we think at minimum the board's decision should be vacated and it should go up go back to the board for the board to perform the requisite analysis of power integrations and problem with the district courts to a sponsor of construction was it was really just based on the abstract and that wasn't the real enough analysis i don't i don't believe that i believe and certainly that the the board disagreed with our construction i don't think the board went into and went into the level of detail to explain why it didn't fit within broad is reasonable interpretation but but again we think we think the court doesn't need to doesn't need to reach that but if it if it does we don't the legal question of enablement in this case an rebut it expert testimony established that it would have been and the phrase is virtually impossible at the relevant time for one and of ordinary skill to make the invention claim zero five three patent using the one eighteen disclosure what do you rely on in the spec to say that it that the second lockdown mechanism has to be mckim certainly  quote it was less secure where you are in the  in a column column six less secure than a mechanical lockdown mechanism because it was dependent on maintenance of the hydraulic fluid pressure in the setting tool j sixty eight columns three and and moving down to the end to end of column three there exists an aid for a lock down mechanism that provides a broader range of adjustment while ensuring a secure mechanical lock them for maximum board's construction as unreasonably divorced from the specification and the record of evidence in terms of what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that that that to be sentence that immediately follows that sentence which clarifies quote this is in column eight lines thirty one three thirty four to insure the mandrel is secure in the operative position th in the operative position using anything other than in the can the full mechanism in that point in the spec it's not sixty and lower flange fifty four and that's not surprising again because the whole the whole believe that the if the court agrees with us as to either the consider the construction of said the either the construction concerning setting tool or hydraulic either of those with respect to second markdown mechanism it should reverse out right because there is no dispute that under our construction and in the construction adopted by the district court there is no interest a patient in this case as a matter of law even if the court were to disagree with this is mission to respond to that and the board simply simply ignore that so if this would be a very different case if the board had said well you know we found the explanation wanting that's not what happened here and we think at a minimum that  operate without hydraulic pressure what the board found correctly is that the patent repeatedly talks about hydraulic pressure locking the mandrel in position the patent in the background talking similar language is used in combination with respect to the hydraulic cylinder in the indie device of the patent the mandrel seventy two is locked down to the top of the position by the hydraulic force appealed to now it's true that reciting exactly that required claim ten recites where the second lockdown mechanism comprises a mechanical locking mechanism adapted to ensure the mantle this maintained in the opposite position in the event the fluid pressure is lost so oil stays acknowledges that this second locking mechanism of claim ten is an optional feature that is precisely the lock mechanism that they would like to beat into playing one more over claim number eight requires that the second lockdown mechanism have a hydraulic cylinder so now we have a plane that says a second locking mechanism includes a hydraulic cylinder and then another depending clamp off a playmate that says that you need there's a depending claim that requires precisely the mechanical locking device that they're trying to read into the independent claims moreover your honor the board found compelling that the inventor knew when to use the term mechanical when to hydraulic and when not to claim one specifically it does not have any need for any adjective describing the locking mechanism that simply says the second law down now the other issue has to do with this setting tool the setting tool is something that is simply undefined in the pact the problem occurs in part because the argument that the second lockdown mechanism must be separate from the setting to or never explained what a setting tool is the district court had that same problem and called this limitation of separate from the setting to be to be  wasn't until the litigation that the inventor who was an employee of oil states decided that this device never worked but even his testimony today doesn't support the theory that the prior art patents  which application is not namely the claimant has nothing to do with pressure doesn't even have to do with fracking the inventor mr dallas acknowledged that the unit five one device worked at low pressure it held the sand off even the testimony that well space refers to in the october a deposition mr dallas said that he had two tools both were used commercially both were used in fracking operations he said improvement but it doesn't preclude doesn't mean that the first invention didn't work the case was very clear that the invention doesn't have to work for all purposes mr dallas is concerned seem to be that if the well pressure went high that it the first did exactly what you claim one requires now you make an argument in your very thank you think that we need to change or whole if it's not a matter of changing hold that printed publications are pretty simply unable i don't hear you making that argument here i hear you mostly defending the decision of the board on enabling them for this court is it really your position that all court so by analogy it does seem reasonable that printed publications in other contexts other than just prosecution would be presumptively enabling now we do also clarify that in this at the citations and said we don't think that there's a question for these particular claims but when for all of the papers are facing about two different claim terms one of which the wellhead assembly which doesn't appear anywhere in the specification of a particular claim submitted citations to a piece of prior art with no explanation or expert testimony it could be that that would be sufficient but it's not necessarily sufficient and if you really wanted to invalidate a patent you would be would really want to explain the very least give explanation probably give expert tells you the same thing for the ring description issue and so in this case the board look said we can't understand how you happened scriptural support and as a result you haven't carried a bird so it was a substantive a procedural aspect to it which is that the rules require them to set forth their support for in description and i think their position is that set forth means just listing the page of my numbers or the column my numbers where that support can be found but if there was any doubt about what that starforce means the board issued an order in this case saying that may be enough and in certainly in some instance it might it might be enough but it's not necessarily enough and good side to a situation where  what the nature of that burden is it simply that that the person who wants to remand has to explain what that amendments were would be patentable like but how far they have to go to not say  necessarily what complaints the board is going to have like the ambiguity of the claim terms so once the board point out the ambiguity to the patent do you have an opportunity to explain to the board those issues in order to try to secure them and then well  i think that it's fair to say that they were aware of that ambiguity because their own expert there was a dispute between the experts in this case about whether whether there was a meeting and i think their expert said my question was the operative position secondly i'd like to respond to my friend's argument concerning whether the tool worked and i think the critical question here is whether the tool worked all not one single time not under low pressure not even in a vacuum and let me provide some cites for that that's j eight ninety seven nine sixty three sixty one and nine ninety three ninety one so again the question isn't