with us this morning the honorable kathleen o'malley district judge from the northern district of ohio welcome we have five cases on the point is always that the order in the aim of the clay which was there in other words even if we think that the trial court was correct we should send it back because of procedur right i mean that the question is whether the claims and clued automatic system and the word the word automatic is all of the specification and it's in the prosecution history specification of prosecution let's let's assume that we conclude that the specification of the prosecution just you're absolutely clear in that what was being given up and what was manual adjustment after the initial input in other words that they were saying that our claim is limited our claims are limited to automatic rearranging of the teeth into into a final position and they're absolutely clear about th no question about are you suggesting that under those circumstances the claims aren't limited to those the way they said they were your honor we are going to play into the issue here most of the time you not answer your question you're not answering my question i'm a hypothetical my hypothetical is it's absolutely clear from the specification and from the prosecution history they said explicitly we give this up we limit this to requires the involvement of an operator in determining two positions and we can talk about the validity of that plan into support but that claim is directly at odds with the lower court ruling that it relates to the use or to a system of mass producing a customized individually tailored orthodontic appliances that is a practice that was unknown in they ar at that time if there's any part of the invention there is a you can automate the process of producing orthodontic appliances that are tailored to the individual anatomy attention to your experts because they were cooperating but i went back and with the help of my clerk who looked at the testimony of those two experts it seems to me that they do not help you on the enablement question and in fact some of the testimony seems to agree that nobody's been successful in coming up with a fully automated system in  and that it isn't in fact perhaps possible to do that do those am i correct about that expert testimony or does it really support your neighbor and if so what here is i don't understand that there was testimony that this video resulted in order manik community computer generated treatment of the patient that my understanding is that the testimony so you're saying that we shouldn't we should assume that the district judge backed into the wrong way but what we should figure out a way to say that what he did ultimately was correct again i don't believe the judge fac right what about the underlying question says it did they have to prove that a patient was actually treated with the invention or do they have to prove that the invention that that that the patent teaches the invention is capable difference the ports prior decision found there was no difference between the two cavity geometries in the tracks appliances using that then of course if it says by no more than it could mark pretty clear that you only look to patents not ensuite if it's necessary to in form the interpretation of claim language again i don't know that we need to even get to the specification of the prosecution history because  that you don't have to find the disclaimer in the claim language if it's explicit in the specification of the prosecution history and so the question under under that view i would becomes he was