please a court the remedy that i seek before the court is that the court properly construe either a clean white or either properly construed claim one to include continuous wolfson or in fact allow the amendment to explicitly state continuous motion is appropriate in this case the findings of the by the fact that the same two references are referred to both as one zero two and one zero three eight the law of one of the two in law the law of anticipation is different than the law of obviousness anticipation requires that it be found within the four corners argued in the brief is the fact that the the board had the obligation to fight to determine whether chandler was entirely incorporated into rose and if it was then that limits the teaching of rose to chandler if that is the teaching it is the teaching in one or two  finding of avieson this is not either necessary or appropriate in this case well alternative grounds i think well because the question is what does rows contain and it's my belief that the determination as to whether this was fully incorporated in rows means that there would be no stretched across both references then what it means is it's an obvious in this case and there the factual the factual point that the petitioners own expert was not willing to or was not able to connect the rose and chandler devices in his deposition and was not able to point out how they connected is important it's  factual issue at that point and necessary so the question then becomes what's appropriate what's the appropriate meaning of claim one and is it found completely one or two in rows as it incorporates chandler or is it in fact one of the three where the factual issue of whether a person skilled in the art which dr we've stood on the fact that mean or that it's continuous exactly intermittent motion is not a species of motion it is a qualification of motion motion bracketed with periods of repose during the out of rows that's important here and if what and when given the opportunity to posit how that would work in deposition dr kagan elected not to explain it it's a factual issue of how it would work but if it won't work then it ought not to essentially be the basis of finding so excuse me if patents are properly right removing them invalidating them taking them out of the hands of the patent holder is something that requires full the full judicial work necessary to invalidate it's the position of the appellant that it hasn't occurred yet as such we should have had a your honor then the confidence of the public is involved and think the result will be the same no this is where the point about dr kagan being unwilling or unable to connect the two shows that the originally from minnesota i could technology it's coming on line now and it's one that we believe we rightfully own and own to the exclusion of the other party involved here  value these are two of the biggest dairy equipment manufacturers in the world neither of them located here it's the fact of the matter is that this is important to both  only reason we're here today and so it's an important property right if we are going to lose that important property right it better be on a full record excuse me in order to preserve the read consistently this is not as the as the board stated a mirriam fide it meant a single embodiment of further teaching that's that's kind of cheating honestly it's clear that in a summary of an invention if those limitations were there certainly if they were otherwise determinative of an outcome they would have been appreciate the reminder  continuous motion of the rotating platform relative to the planing location seems to just suggest that the cleaning location stationary and rotating platform passing by it referred to a second hand of a watch in our brief way of thinking about it driving in this morning it occurred to me that my motion was certainly not continuous unfortunately i did eventually make it from point a to point b and in the process passed by three in a real occasion and that's all that the patent claim says all that it requires but i think that the conclusion is underscored by the fact that the patent suit really is directed to the cleaning device where as the milking parlor with which it is used it characterizes conventional there is no description of the mechanism for driving the milking parlor there is no description in the patent of any significance for the platform to be rotating continuously in fact  one mention of continuous rate taishan and it occurs in the context of saying the platform is rotating continuously but it's very slow and therefore the cast can get off without too much trouble doesn't seem to have anything any connection any relationship to the operation of the cleaning device and so my colleagues contention that  reference and chandler somehow required an intermittent rotation in which to operate doesn't find basis in the record there's no indication that in order for  as needed to work on a continuously rotating milking parlor and the reply was i don't know and the expert doesn't know either and that i think really absent the board having erred in its construction of the plane there's really no issue with respect to the firearm rejection these points vs points of suppose a distinction between anticipation and obviousness here really no distinction at all because the chandler reference is referred to in resit self so there's no question about the so called combined ability of the two references rose says a rotating platform we can use the one described in chandler which happens to be intermittent but again that's neither here nor there on either of the two principal issues that is to say course as a moving party lally have the burden to demonstrate by the preponderance of the evidence that the substitute claims were patentable as the board found the claim eleven represented a combination of known commonly used milking apparatuses with the roses automated spray device the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would know about this combination is was in the patent itself which admits that the continuous rotating platform is conventional the expert testimony which was referenced earlier that you know their own experts said that the continuous platform was conventional and then with the rose automated spray device no evidence was presented that the combination would have been done one of ordinary skill in the art and as we discussed earlier in fact when judge would of the people have questioned well his counsel about it it would have been beyond the or the ordinary scale of the art to combine the conventional rotating device with the automated spray device he said he didn't know yes your honor the issue about the amendment is important i believe to us and that is the fact that there could be imagined no narrower or a more narrowing type of amendment than simply to put in the expressed requirement that the carousel rotate continuously the question was asked whether at the time that the motion was denied had we presented evidence that it would be admissible we adopted at that point the preliminary statement of the patent owner as the statement of because in essence it's a night dentical issue we had already presumed continuous motion and then simply adopted we made a point to which the director did respond about the fact that fifteen pages at the time was a very scant amount to address what was necessarily a larger topic the response was well wait a second well after you were required to respond to the directory issue a quick fixes now one doesn't fix what isn't broken therefore these quick fixes and allowing for instance claims to be appendix essentially work arounds for the page limit were adopted after the time that in fact we were required to submit so they really weren't available us at the time the facts of the matter is that even if they had been there was really no additional information tech add we had argued in the patent owners preliminary statement that these