are three cases on the calendar this morning have been consolidated for argument and we appreciate the parties cooperation in that regard the cases are sixteen one three two seven zam versus gillette sixteen one three that came in this case demonstrate that there is no clear clear meaning of this term is not is substantially as the board concluded and not entirely i don't think so your honor what the expert testimony was that the parent teaches that when the weekly finalized plasma or there is a quote substantial limitation of the possibility avoid it and there are times when it's not avoidable so if you were even to your view if you were construe these claims as saying it covers a situation where the cult does not create  sometimes not so how can you avoid a way under those circumstances but i don't think the claims don't recite a situation in which every possible in plasma because it's not possible to eliminate that in all instances correct misinterpretation of the argument the board apparently thought that we were trying to already what i think one colleague has characterized as an absolutist construction in which every possible contingency of parking has to be eliminated but that was never the argument the argument only ever was that there were certain controls placed on the  of the kinds of pulses that could be used to achieve this rise time that is what the claims are directed to be around much the programming of the power supply allows control over the rate at which the energy is delivered into the plasma so yes it would have been publicly accessible but there was no evidence that that website even existed at the time of the invention that when page printout was a printout  ninety five so isn't that evidence that a website existed as of maybe ninety five i don't think it is at all your honor i think it merely says that this is a list of documents since hundred five it says nothing about when the list was created certainly says nothing about when the list was posted to the internet says nothing about when the list was made available to anyone in anything it's simply a l year period of yeah obviously priority yes however again in the absence of evidence and be just speculation to say when that list became available honor but the operative part of the decision as i understand it was that the court recognized that the manuscript  the record about when those postings occurred or the process used by west law for dialogue to incorporate the proper read office records then one could not say th the other thing that judge stevens noted in her to seth was as a mention that there was no evidence concerning when the catalog even existed and so there is nothing t got it but he goes up immediately thereafter and says essentially look your question is asking about every possible instance of forming an art and that's enough that the claim is about the claims directed to conditions that prevent plasma from forming as an arc as it for us but there's other testimony of that page one ninety eight ninety nine in the same transcript here so in order to read the claim outset even during the formation the claim only speaks to the application of the focus and not all possible circumstances for our thing that might exist and i think the testimony is consistent with that point and the board get it mr de vito at the same spot say wayne discloses a pulse d c power supply connected to the target that produces a train of negative voltage pulse specification indicates that no parking or purse in the formation of a strong ice plaster started the seven sixteen pound column three specification says increasing the power applied to the plasma killing increase appeal which deals with the russians they said yes and you tell us precisely what evidence was before the scheme that we're supposed to use to support its conclusion yes it was probably there first there's no dispute that the work had any attempt to make it publicly available he wouldn't do that unless you wanted to intend to make it in the presence where well that if you have an intention to make something available to the public and edits  i think it was  same title and one who had that information would be able to figure out who's this muslim guy and go with him in the library that seems to be the likely place to find something he's from the soviet union let's go look at the russia state library so i believe with that information was it was also support the conclusion that this was publicly probably be able to supporters said you don't have to show a specific date that something was catalogue mr case require that we rule against you or talk about who you're here if we were talking about a two year period that no i don't think it would require that right or i think it would be a more difficult argument because we're talking about what's reasonable what's reasonable for the board whose way this evidence to to believe and to your isp makes that resembles calculation more challenging certainly than seven years but i think seven years it seems to me there really is no question and if you carry on the side of reasonable this and deferring to this to the board's discretional on this issue then i believe that the seven years which is the case makes it  not exist i think the principal point of our argument is that when a library goes the effort and these cases involve libraries that did not go to the effort of cataloging or indexing the library goes to that effort to make a catalogue by name by date by after the thesis was created and a reasonable time is certainly within six or seven years hypothetically that we were to either construe probability is different and you construe it or if the the that language wasn't in the spec of the spec he was the language clearly there's no possibility of parking would be the expert the kind of ask testimony that the board relied on here be sufficient to overcome what is arguably clear of language in this that and the claim and clear language and say well i think it could be your right or it's a hypothetical it is it is it really expert testimony when it when there's agreement among the experts i put that way that there's no way this that this is not going to happen one hundred percent of the time is that sufficient to overcome clear claim language in th increases its power output to transition from a weekly i was plasma to a strong bias what exactly we're playing does and substantial evidence supports the board's i could solution on that point hypothetically if we were to disagree with you about the public availability of pieces are there other grounds or validation of three plans that we're talking about that were released by the board well t the the we believe that the market article itself would also invalidate those claims and if this court decided that the thesis was not available then take almost any reasonable view of what that scale is like it's all one division or small divisions and we believe they will also produce the same result that would still produce a mathematical result that's within the scope of those without occurrence of marking language only applies to the strongly ionized plasma and that's simply incorrect this claim is speaking to a single task reading of the weekly on affected by the creation and the phrase without an occurrence of marking is how that creation done that's the prejudicial phrase that modifies the term create so this is a rather different claim than the one we looked at the earlier and here the contrast with wayne is even more striking there was reference to wings figure six and body but  it was initially raised in the patent owners for women are a response and raised again in the patent owners not by the i mean a specific argument we're talking about now i'm in a apparently you first argued that wasn't publicly available because it was russia