and that's buried when you usually are pretty epic so it's poncing compressibility compensation merely a result of placing a pressure regulator behind any such as a syringe pump or is it a requirement of a pump having a mechanism to set a portion of the stroke to compression and the remainder to deliberate this is an important question because the claims stand rejected based upon art that all parties reply brief you fundamentally don't have an answer for for so when you say the screw versus the syringe are you talking about eight you really don't know what i'm talking so you're talking about there's a called out that's a pretty good reason not conclusive but pretty good reason to think that the claim covers them and the and i take it from that the relevant page in your reply brief which  this is not definitional there mirabelle you has those those seem to me just not to be responsive to to the core point so that if there were ambiguity in the claim language these embody men's seemed to me to defeat possibly include wires but yet the claim language which didn't say it had to be wiring free but was a sense that all parties that this must make a should make clear should be wire free this if it's clear enough my problem is that this q your claim language that talks about something and delivery and at a compensation compress  constant compressibility compensation leaves on clear exactly how those things fit together and as long as it's unclear one needs to find something in the spec that says arguments that i think you disclosed in vitamin c you've disclosed claim you've disclosed embodiments where the pump does not have that constant compressibility compensation compressibility capacity i'm going to get another c so you've actually disclosed situations in which the pump itself doesn't do that so why why is it rational for the board to believe that accomplishing that is something that doesn't have to be a capability of the pump itself rather would one say or be inconsistent to say that you would get the present invention despite having constant compressibility compensation if that was just a result well what us that there is a back pressure regulator that is conditioning the flow behind that is to allow for the use of constant impassibility compensation to deliver the control phrase what may be more of a confusion than anything else but confusion i think unfortunately doesn't help you here so that the way that this claim is written it seems to me to leave unclear whether the up one one without a plunger in it which means it would be one reasonable way of interpretating this language which could apply that language to the delivery which is clearly how the board thought of it and not as a description of an activity of the pump itself so why does that it seems to me what i want to hear is is there some reason that just does not make physical sense in terms of you can try to make me understand sure so i think there's a couple things one i think that the claim limitation is a mouthful but i think that what was going on here was it was written for one of mourners are and what was what the the back pressure regulator has the required properties that's all that this and i think that she cares about that's where another part of the confusion another part of rooting out from the claim comes from and that's about the possible fluids because the s and so what the prior art did was it had something called dynamic compensation it basically had monitors to constantly understand what state that fluid was in and when to understood that state it would change that you don't need this that this dynamic system has to adjust the rate then why do you need a separate compressibility capability for the pump sure so once you condition that flour and these claims make it clear that you need multiple steps you need a pressure or maintaining step to sort of condition that flow to limit this wild unpredictability you're limiting the predictability you've made up to possible through that act a little bit less than possible but it's still possible and you still have to deal with the fact that downstream is probably mixing with other fluids and it still you need to account for that condition of that fluid to get get it out reproducibly and deliver the fluck so but what i mean why is it irrational to read this occasion to say that it is the it is the flow stream that is accounting for that that is that is protecting against the the variations  a summary of invention and i'm at the bottom of problem three in this is page a thirty five it says any types of back pressure regulars or work with their preferred environment the last impossible right and but but you're saying that so so you're saying that it's the flow which according to this could could be governed by a syringe  language of the specification which says and i can quote at least one example in in column five to line sixty six through column six to line five the present invention does not require knowledge of the compressibility constant of the fluid being delivered to the chromatography system because the pump is pumping a constant pressure that's the back pressure the pump can run at different flow rates in an open loop with no not have any compressibility compensation is there to speak about diaphragms obvious question from the way you just phrase your point i don't think there was either i don't i don't think there is either but i i focused on scoop on too because the board does as well and it is this action that distinguishes in re diabetes care which is the case cited by my to my kind of we also would point to the claims and rely on the broadest reasonable for protection standard i think if you read the claims it is clear that it can as he's ours step back and make exists try to explain to  what it is for there to be a certain kind of compensation for get work of that from that after which either pumping or delivery occurs when there is no response of some compressibility altering device to about a constant compressibility compensation yes and it says something has to occur act that so it's at some sort of compensation can you explain and common sense well the specification and the board in considering the decoration from waters expert concluded that that was a result of pumping against the back pressure the elevated back pressure and that's the way the claim is written i  don't know what the word fact in your sentence refers to and that being the constant compressibility compensation is a result of creating a controllable flow stream which is the result of pumping against the back pressure and that pumping can be done by any pump of it doesn't have already built into it compressibility compensation that's what is describ specification is how do you respond to to your argument on the other side that what the invention is doing and what the specification is describing is not a situation in which there doesn't have to be any kind of  control where you don't need a dynamic control and that's what that was the whole point that was the expensive pumps that they were trying to do away with and so in the prior art there would have been both right a dynamic flow control as well as the compressibility constant compressibility control so what they're saying is they're only doing away with the one not the other my response is respect for their misconstru the specification is broader than just allowing a constant compressibility pump to be used instead of a dynamic compressibility the specification is very clear that you don't need to control for compressibility at all in the pump you're using and you still get a controllable flow at a constant compressibility compensation and that's what the board found sightings citing material at a sixteen in the record they looked at the declaration of pertains to converting a pump with constant compressibility compensation for use in gradient aleutian supercritical fluid chromatography doesn't that imply that the pump has to have a constant compressibility compensation mechanism i would say no your honor pertains this is one example of a type of pump that can be used to achieve the claimed about the present invention as not requiring knowledge of the compressibility constant of the fluid other there are several instances in the specification cited in the board decision where the present invention is described as not requiring any adjustment for compressibility and you still get the controllable flow at a constant compressibility compensation that's claimed so i would say that this section that talks about pertaining doesn't limit the scope of the invention for that to the extent that it applies it's talking about using a constant abreast with a compensation pump is one thing that could be used but you could also use other things like the diaphragm and screw pumps that are strong at least for the argument against you starting trying to the pump kind of run a different flow rate and open loop with no compressibility compensation and then it says the pump is controlled by constant pressure and therefore flow rate may be changed independent press ability how do you get around that line rate that the next sentence goes to you without the need for dynamic compensation and so if we around dynamic compressibility compensation but it's getting around the need for a separate independent construct compressibility mechanism because i think because you still need  possibility compensation mechanism to deal with the fact that while you've narrowed that changing possibility of a compressible flow you still have a fluid that has some credibility to it they do you can see that it doesn't actually say that anywhere in the specification that you say someone with skill in the art would understand that but it doesn't actually say that it putting all those exact lines together no does not some one i would like to point out the fact that i think a lot of these findings and conclusions actually don't have any support to the editor of record so there's no cite to any authority for these findings such as ok well i think we're beyond