intent to deceive but it wasn't material at all because of a centrally identical and even more relevant prior art that already been submitted by counsel examiner early in the prosecution how do we w i haven't thought deeply about that but i think i think there is an argument that it wouldn't have been material even without rovers but the explanation for that it sure looks all right last night oregon surely looks a lot like your claim seeing no it doesn't it the structure of the undisclosed scene is exactly the same as the structure of the disclosed chain except that they do underscore the sleeve has only one top stitch whereas the disclosed se here one topstitch best way i could point out to say is that the claimant doesn't read on the either the disclosed seem or the undisclosed scene because of the way the seams are folded in the way that the binding  and this court has said repeatedly in various cases going back to the wall case the relevant question is not whether inventor preferred one thing or another but why he preferred it if he preferred it because it was the only one he thought would but the point was it doesn't matter whether he was confused lying anything about the end is when he knew about the indisposed because it was number two that's the bottom line it wasn't material  nothing about folding over the bonding l so you just made a simple misreading error he also misread clause g because he thought that folding such that must have an immediate causal reaction and in fa right is that of yes ok let's figure eighteen of their past and that's substantially ok now if i understand the way a school does it according to this set of drawings they put the year shaped adhesive around each of the separate components first and they put a stitch through to hold it on correct right now the question i have is why would at that point the point the funding agent is attached to each of the components there's no scene that such there is no semen so why then is that the ethical system not faile part b of claim one which is the independent claim placing a binding element a lot having at least a thermal and he's a component along the seam such that a lower surface of the binding element about another surface well the district has recognized if you look at his findings findings of fact ninety and ninety one you will see that he did recognize that in as well as product they achieved that relationship of cause b but he thought that they achieved that relationship when they did relationship was achieved he thought it was achieved in this st what what is well has learned here is basically take the stamp of placing along the seam and divided it into two sub parts first they but to see the adhesive around here and are you make an argument that the robers was cumulative argument was not need to the district court in their reply brief your posing counsel comes back with on page five  paper that was part of the prosecution's history it was not argued to the court in opening statements to be to make the other pieces of our cumulative there was no live testimony this horrific crime was affecting the conclusions of r west is arguing strongly that neither roberto nor the undisclosed seam are like the invention but he's taking the position that they are like one another which is the question that we need to what is and i do look compounds the lies to the to the examiner because as as i was about to say earlier the fundamental misrepresentation was mr watt attempting to trivialize the raincoat and separate it from the dress  especially in the outer garment industry where barry says this embodied in his especially well suited for fully padded packed now how does that relate judd silly found that one of the reasons that the undisclosed seemed was material was because the undisclosed seem would have taught that the rape codes are and the treasury are in fact are very similar and concepts from one can easily easily be imported into the other but the joint appendix three zero two three five thirty thousand to thirty five because what the hell is trying to do is separate each of these little facts and then argue separately that they are not mature or not prevent same structure it's not said a spec you're in for garden garments in accordance with the president that invention particularly shirts and that it gives two reasons he says although the over the edge can be avoided by incorporating it overlaps to chill on the edge this ditches unacceptable in most applications particularly shirts because it increases the thickness of the scene and and isn't comfortable as it rubs or where in fact most retail firms find overlock seems structures unacceptable now this for this case too if the thing that is trying to be avoided here is having was called an open seam which means that that the material is cut and then there's nothing to stop it from friend and overlock seem will go around the outside company for many years had sold quite a few directors having these over lock scenes in effect at the time he made this misrepresentation his company was still selling five percent of the chips with these overlaps and this was an affirmative misrepresentation of fa that had argued against work i should say mr watt failed to disclose the truth about his own company sales of directors in light of his affirmative misrepresentation to support an argument and are scenes for many many years he was afraid of that and he was trying to trivialize the raincoats emaar so that the examiner will look at that and so every time he had the opportunity he kept distinguishing raincoat seems as well relates to the representations made in the one thousand nine hundred six event the undisclosed scene again would he have told the examiner that he raped hobart isn't is important well known and understandable the persons who are designed dress shirt scenes as well the red coat are of course in the one nine hundred ninety six amendment mr one says that one reason that you shouldn't look at red coats seems as if they have the two top stitches stitch and yet it was a ramp up and again if he had explained that to the xander the examiner would have realized that there really is no difference between the seams you make for poor raincoats and the scenes that you make for drescher it's and the examiner should be looking at these raincoat scenes and scrutinizing them you know the talent complains that one reason that you can find the disclose seam is not material is because the examiner didn't give it much consideration that's that's th other side pointing to any intrinsic information in the specification prosecution history that would support their decision so why should judge shelly's determination be overturned there's there's no argument from the transfer gets overturned prior art and he didn't point out anything we challenge them repeatedly to do that they can't do it we brought up a row bears not only at trial on the prince charles findings and argued in the final argument we got those citations in our uncomfortable it was a you could use an overlock scene that that might help prevent frame it would also just added the thickness and so that would just make it worse in that respect that's all the same in the prosecution history