necessary qualifications and i must say it's been my long clinic for the past two years and i have observed his demeanor and in style and his qualifications and i am delighted that in the nick xom contribution to the i think i was or five minutes very little yes maybe if your card there is only one rejection and that is on appeal there's only one rejection that's preventing our application from proceeding to grant inventor ship so we did not decide this issue in our case we have four inventors that have been that are named as inventors in the five and nine application but only two of those inventors are in common with the inventors that are named in and that is discussed in a van or them however in that case if you look at then i say to emphasize the control that the inventors had over the division of the ownership and it's in this case they talk about they chose to assign to general motors and then later they filed a broadening of the patient and they actually emphasized the nature of the disclosure in that broadening out for patients of the second that were given the right deal is they they discuss how it's not really an invention it's not really a contribution to that the concern about harassment is in fact fighting i don't know if it used were high and i don't recall that term but i do recall them saying that there is a concern that there of the potential for harassment by multiple estimates i agree with that  guidance from this court about whether or not these rejections should be made well they said absent a clear statement that would that they don't dream or that they tell you can be strained by the ban on them and the correct i agree that they said that absent direction from this court that they felt constrained by the ban on them and follow decisions and they didn't feel like they were a body that could it could make a difference engine and then i don't read that a at the p t o saying to this court we think this is a really close call and we want you to tell us which way to go i think i read it differently that that they think they got it right to my recollection when i was arguing the case at the  i was a comment that they made such as we are not the federal circuit we can't decide this issue differently that they felt constrained and that's why i read their decision in the way that i read it here what do you want them to do i would like  reverse this rejection and to allow our patent to proceed to grant i believe that these rejections are not appropriate and that they why they end up with an imbalance in public policy i understand what you which is the end game which that the court the judicially created law was not actually created you'd want to say that to the extent that the m p e piece a common inventor ship would give rise to this kind of a rejection there we should say that that's wrong in the can stand i would agree that i would like it would be it would be wonderful if the n p c was corrected to state that you must have a common essig need or identity of a man or ship to make these types of rejection written to really getting at the controls that these owners they're looking at ownership and the control that the owners have and their potential to manipulate the patent system in our case there's no concern that cal tech could take advantage of the pen some cal tech is the owner of the application issue e t h and universities are the owners of the reference patent it has never been the case that cal tech ever had an ownership of the six eight five patent these into via the ownership like so well the claims i don't believe that's true first of all one the one thing i want to point out is that casey cases are routinely granted to two different as signees even when there  these this is not an issue of policy concern that decides that dictates the decision in fact the public policy of encouraging disclosure of inventions is really the policy that is overriding this concern infringers what we do with the policy the congressional policy that seems to be reflected in the creative act where they allowed for terminal disclaimer in limited circumstances but circumstances that would not cover i think in the create and if i recall correctly what they did is it also allowed for some of those preferences to be not be considered prior art under one or two or one of three so they discussed in the appeal with that rejection was never made we've actually asked examiner we said this is what the rejection you think you should make and had you made it here that let's go ahead and argue it for expediency but that the rejection that could be made is not been excluded from the realm this appeal but that isn't really the issue is it evidence seems to me that in all these years and throughout my practice when i was on that side of the case you knew if you had a different kin try and be honest in who they name as an inventor for each invention i didn't mean to make a speech but i found this extraordinary complex kind of evolution contrary t these are different inventive entities and there are different owners and to say nonetheless we're going to punish you because you filed a c i a piece to me is most extraordinary office action and i've never why this should make a difference well but in fairness for van our court did say that that part of the problem there like that that's going to be assigned the history of the assignments meant that there was actual involvement in in dividing the ownership yet i don't know that i necessarily agree with that some reading then one of the way i understand it is those were individual inventors to individual inventors and then they assigned one to g m in a second application to rock or and is that really all that different from what hobbled that here i mean by changing appointment he assigned one to cal tech and once universities or whatever it was hobbled was the inventor who made that decision who was signed and even if the court thinks that you know those facts are slightly different i think whether or not but applications for commonly on doesn't really matter in terms of the policy the policy is to stop harassment of infringers by multiple pa we don't know whether on the merits one would render the other this we see genus species claims all the time but you're saying that the office if they think that these are the same inventions has no the threshold requirements of double patenting the same event of an idiot with the same common ownership then you apply the two way tests but don't apply it to strange is correct but there is overlapping overlapping of the life of the second one that was filed or that was allowed because of the the patent life running from the date of grant so you have the same potential for harassment when you have a terminal disclaiming which under the more even the more restrictive conditions conditions you're talking about your entitle to so to say that is a potential for harassment is quite tempting except that you are seventeen years of headache i guess i don't understand the question well as i find this very very strange interpretation of what on an extremely clear and applicable stature and applicants knew what to expect when they had a genius species they knew what the future held they tried to accommodate it with it and you know we think particularly in this case the equities are are not and hobbles favor and hubble is asking for you to change you know it's precedent been one based on distinctions that we think do not matter never on its own than enough to prevent the grand patent and that is while it pointed out the unrelated entities scenario in the end of it and it is scenario where you have different owners the  routinely grants dominating claims and application as long as it meets the other requirement that does not look to the patents or pending applications of other owners of other inventors and it doesn't do different event which means that you don't have the same owner there's no comma there so this concern that the pen others has it has no ability to do anything if there are different owners of course it has the ability to it and do something if it believes that there's a same invention it has a way of protecting the public from those types of situations and it doesn't interfere in kind and let me take you back to follow the part that you said you don't recall and below it is right before the conclusion it says subtle rassmann justification for obvious that out when the claims were granted the counter looked at those claims and said you know what we disclose that doesn't have to be limited to be common and producing it let's refile it we'll get it all out quickly it was a shock that we work that this is is where we are today that nine years later we're arguing this case before the federal circuit to try to get a patent that we believe should have been proceeded to grant very quickly when we filed in two thousand and three exactly because very similar claims were allowed and they realized we shouldn't be limited to a common in the had been there from the beginning it was in retrospect an error it wasn't the full scope of what they thought they deserved and we we disclose it doesn't have the limited like that there was no prior art rejection and that is something that had just been there from  beginning it was an oversight we reached out the case as quickly as we notice the oversight we've been languished at the patent office for for some period of time we had a priority issue that was dismissed and then the  not anything but to correct an oversight in the scope of the claims it was a shock that this is what happened but an oversight that that is attributable to cal tech not attributable to anything that the p involved in the system because you're saying that people consider if your inventors are going to move before you file an application before a valid application just be careful your inventor is not about to move somewhere else because he probably continued his research or you know what let's make restrictive covenant contract and sometimes there is no easy way to resolve it through contract these are a labrat cases that have multiple terminal flamers that have been filed with which would affect multiple  to restrict people's abilities to do research and stuff them theoretically we could ask research institutions to to research to enter into restrictive covenants which may or may not be upheld and prevent their employees from continuing to do research in important around you may be correct and i'm not aware the best way to do that and receiving guidance from this court would be very helpful in knowing what we could have done to have had dealt with this kind of situation but i think it's very common for people to move for them didn't see the research and would end the institution that they're going to research believes that they will be the owner they make them sign agreements saying you will assign all of your rights for your inventions and that's that that's a common practice today so if the way is the way