disconnect is where the board in its final written decision effectively substituted the use of selectively found in the prior art and inserted that into step five of claim one dollar eighteen cents but didn't the board actually end in one sen separated by a semicolon use the word selectively and only together they used them in adjacency or in they did use a semi colon but they in fact the onus wrote in the board use the phrase that it so that they said selectively that is only in language your honor respect is a little more precise than that it's not simply in closing the card inside a package and sealing around it the steps have to be read in order to create the claimed secure card space at the end of step five so part part of it is  space that could be called secure other prayer disclosed space that wouldn't be secure my argument is not exactly what your honor said it's more nuance it's that the particular secured smee required by independent claims of this is only made by following these steps in this order and the fact that some art may have a different security space for instance a blister pack could be considered secured space that would be not the secured space claimed by  order i'm talking about the order of steps in this claim rather than the order disclosed in the prior art so what i'm what i'm saying is i hope this is responsive is that the priority supposes many spaces some which could be considered secure some of which i want to address though i think the the panel's focus is exactly right and clearly has understood c p r s argument here is that once obvious just was a fait accompli once the board holds that selectively and only fundamentally mean the same thing this would be a very this would be a more different appeal than it is if the board had said the following which it did if the board said we're not sure about the meaning of the word only or the phrase only in the region substantially surrounding an office of card and therefore we're going to construe that term or that phrase and engage in a claim construction alice's that would be very different and nothing like that occurred here what the problem is the board did from the outset what what m p s asked to do in the initial petition to  treat the particular claim language as something more general that was in the prior art and once you do that the obviousness analysis flows from it almost automatically some of the disconnect was there at the beginning but was there any example in the prior art where that in this record where you do want to but even in willard that's what he's feeling or portion of what we're talking right well look ward says you can use the heat sealing or you can use tape or a think the phrases any method known in the art so the the ability and even the desirability of having it he says on the card is no no other there are other references that i think your honour's alluding to where there are times where you don't want your experts that there be thousands of examples out yeah absolutely i root that your honor and so i think that's why it's so important to be faithful to the precise claim language instead of treating at a higher level of generality to say that well you know where we've enclosed a card in a package and put a blunder on it that's all that's claimed that's i think  correct i think such a construction would have been inappropriate and neither party asked for the construction and the board didn't purport to give an instruction although i think what's understood discussion here today is is whether there was some you know backdoor construction made that the board didn't acknowledge it was doing and that neither party requested i mean to some extent that feels what's going on that a construction if the board wanted to engage in the analysis performed it probably had an obligation to do a construction now that's not the air assigned to it here because both parties agreed construction was unnecessary and that's our position today the problem was not doing construction but the problem was in substance deviating from the language of the claim going to the word selectively which is in the priority is much broader than the word only is used in the claim selectively at least if disclosed in macro it is not only doesn't verse only to geography about where on the panel you apply but also temporarily when you where they want the bod i would submit that's a tautology when we're talking about creating a bond the missing link there though in the board's analysis was the desire why is it why does one of still there desire to create the bond exactly where step five key is that they're different than the word only in step five so if there were some reference that explain in the art that the board had relied on to say here's the reason it's desirable for one of skill in the art to only put the bond where step of claim want to parse some a reference like that might supply the the missing link so to speak in what would be needed to sustain the rejection it was added two or three times earlier so and while the word only was discussed by the apt in the examiner in the context we're discussing here with the board's decision only was not looked through the lens of selectively or where desire the way we're looking through it from the warts i think the prosecution history doesn't do a great job of illustrating the distinction between only selectively because selectively wasn't used that way in prosecution with one exception i think it's at time of filing no your honor not the time of filing with one it's and i want to qualify my no answer because the answer is no but as it was explained to the board large portions of the will of reference are copied either verbatim or nearly verbatim from the ha reference which was cited during press about jobs jones i don't believe was said during pressed you should know you're either on the prosecution the to the lead references during prosecution hanson and goad were far more closely blister packs rather than two pieces of art so to the point of prosecution i think that the striking similarity between willard and the hanson reference and prosecution is somewhat useful i think m p s was technically secure in two different but very important importantly different ways secure in the context of this art community at least two things willard disclose you secure a card to a panel with an adhesive so it doesn't fall off the panel that's not unlike me words mean through the same thing three through the same thing then it's also easy i think to to not to be insufficiently precise about secure as a fix and secure as protect a card from tampering earth and those those sens secure are not the same and i think there may be some dispute about what what willard understood his own to invention to be but i think when it comes to claim one and the scene of the smith and it's completely unambig claimed is a secure space after you get to the end of all five steps of the infinite claims it instructs a person born of skill that's what's being created is a secure space in that sense of security so i think in substance our chief complaint and the legal air the board made was being insufficiently faithful to the claim language what if if only can mean selectively and then with respect to another piece or selectively might also be where desired then in substance the legal in else is just cramming the been addressed the issue here really is whether there was substantial evidence of this limitation that that to heat seal around the edge of the packet which  the board had plenty of evidence in front of it willard the prior art identified by the expert in terms of its common technique of heat house yet sealing was done commonly the expert cited multiple supporting teachings for that this was this was a well known technique for applying heat sealing in packaging in packaging where there's  board that was used for the past the court ordered whether it was coded that was the disk that was what the examiner didn't have evidence of in front of him so that was the argument that was made that was the limitation that was added to the planes that the paper board had some coating on it some non non polymer merit coating and that was you can see here that they were trying to distinguish on the part of putting the word non in it and that was that was the limitation that was was at issue and so as a consequence of some of the petition focused on the obviousness of using this kind of particular paper board they claimed it was again that's not an issue on the subpoena but there was a substantial discussion of that record you think there's a really distinct difference between the word selectively and only in this context when we're talking about disclosures of sealing around the edge of a package as was commonly done the teaching of selectively really has only one conclusion it's that europe and this is why we point to the math your you are selectively applying heat sealing where you want the seal that's what's light there's no other interpretation that's really provided here there's no other explanation that can that's been the edge was obvious and only around the edge and not on top of the card and they reached the obviousness conclusion that you claim heat and pressure only in that ceiling region two  to other issues and after they briefly discussed after the board had substantial evidence saying there was no substantial evidence but the board had substantial evidence in front of it that that packet had an ap twelve i think through twenty each is covering the aperture with this rd panel explicitly says that so this argument that well and after can have a cover on it is inconsistent with its magic plane destruction if they were going there known technique in the same way thank you package but it he said that maybe a hot melt appear at thirty four it says other conventional mechanisms may be used to secure the card to the paneling and of course if we want to max for what conventional mechanisms are it discusses pressure sensitive he says wh edge of the package and again this is one more example of the board being a little imprecise in the claim language the claim language will require sealing only around the perimeter of the card and doesn't refer to a seal around the edge of the package and of those two are not the same i see that my time is