i did that docket number thirteen ten forty eight you maybe get support for the proposed amendments deplaned one and three in specification and second are deal with part of our projections under either one of two or one of the three anticipation are obvious to us i think the believe it does yes i had that going to and i had a different understanding that the board rejected going up on one or two and one of three one two four and five it rejected one three three and written description so if we agree with the prior rejection  it's a dependent claim so by definition something more correct there is something more there i haven't seen anything that suggests that there's anything more in three to make it patentable as compared to one or two to get can i ask on yes in the event that we don't follow that concession can i ask a written description question assuming that we agree that a board requirement if that's what it was korea's goal make it how do you define what you think the right inquiry is well i don't make inquiries whether the issue the features that are being added are disclosed in a manner that allows the public and the know this inventor had this in his mind he knew what he had available to him he had in his possession and what's the what's the evidence when you have a the inventor had in mind combining those two features in a single support or you've got an additional claim there that has a back wall with five elements as well that are combined and that it a pattern or there goes on to say making a claim construction argument here and you're asking us to add a limitation that says there's essentially the no touching correct there's certainly a well certainly there is there's going to be a no touching issue there but beyond that there's a bigger issue confusion maybe i'm confused because i have stood your arguments in the that that's the prior art didn't disclose interactions between the blades where the blades don't actually touch there's no interaction between the now what we've got a look problem here is or at least an understanding problem i think is that we talk talk talk about the engagement with the up from late in the pat when you look at the nine seven three pattern the upper pla there is a rejection against i want to one of three rejection against claim three i agree with its logic that those that claim three would also be anticipated and or obviously do the prior art but to propose a claim construction the examiner docket that construction the board agreed with that construction twice in law brief he states that the claim for time attraction was correct the complaint is that the board's construction all of those limitations the board found to be included in the prior art and now to try to overcome the prior art lobbies asserting that there are these two limitations that are not reside in the claims and have little or no support in lobby specifications but you agree that that if you went through all the prior art that that blade and an upper blade label thirty identified as thirteen in forty and you have a comb notch identified as hand and you have an apex in that home not identified as thirty three if you go to that apex that's where the groove notch is that the shape thing only in this case the bottom of the the is sort of at two o'clock and you'll see that both of the blades thirteen and fourteen do not touch comb head at the apex or in the grooves notch forms underneath apex thirty three so that limitation even if we were well it's not a limitation but if we were to say that it was wall discloses that alleged limitation so that issue is off the table the other alleged limitation plate thirteen but if you look to lobby specification no where in the written description is such an overhang describes and in fact if you look at the lower plate and figure a lot and you can see thirteen there identifies that cutting teeth thirteen at the lower stationary plate and then looked out of pure twelve you'll see that lower plate thirteen actually extends past the it in the written description is identified as a dutch and you can see this configuration again in figure seventeen so the actual the lower so as far as this alleged second limitation of this overhang not only is it not close in the figures or in the written portion of the lobby specifications the opposite is this cl so there's no support for these alleged limitations in the specification or the drawings there they're not written into the claims these aren't additional limitations and if they were additional imitate well if for example the movable cutting blade touch not touching the grooves notch where a limitation will certainly need that and i'm switching to the other issues with a description issue yes why isn't it evident to a skills artist in reading the specifications that you can do the side walls in the spring clip in the same on the it's not enough that the specification would make obvious i didn't someday obvious i think it's a tried very hard to avoid using the term but it seems to me it's not uncommon for a number of features to be laid out in different embodiments and claims to say use both a and b and at least one possible dividing line and i agree written description doctrine is less than perfectly informative but one possible standard would be is some mechanical issue ways that would tell a skilled artist and i'm not sure the inventor here really had in mind because it raises issues not such issues not solved putting different features and mixing and matching there are are not to be selfish and i was talking that one is when you have a list of different environments and different parts there has to be some sort of indication that the inventor with setting aside at the time of filing not at some point later on at the time of highly they had the parts configured in a specific arrangement you have the time of filing we don't have that here the things that are either or i don't see this as saying that somehow spring clip is either or with the side of i respectfully disagree there is no drawing where you have i look at it there is no dispute here that there is a further of six refs indication to use the two together if you are you saying that's always required i'm not saying that's always require when i say what is the mechanical issues that would make a skilled artist and say in a reading this there is a problem here that i don't see the solution to in having both the spring clip and the side element or you saying there is that it it's perfectly clear and any skilled artist and w understand that you can mix and match matches i'm the written description requires that the specification indicated so it's still the art what the inventor why when someone say well i'm going to have a sprinkler but i also want to prevent sliding where this is frankly this court has repeatedly held that they have honed is not enough you need some sort when you have a list of different attachments and he both types of elements present in in the same device and here i respectfully disagree with judge toronto's characterization that only the backplate is it's the saying that's changed if you look at the drawings for exist if you look at the drawings for example in figure twenty four ebay the side elements are physically located on the back flip this cone is a completely different court the panel or is trying to get away with sort of a slight of hand here during prosecution with respect to a claim construction the pattern over urged adoption for the comb embodiments are discussed majority of the patent discusses disposable cutting it but in that language what they describe is a group notch and they actually say having group not thirty four to receive the front edge thirty six of them small because again as solicitor has pointed out throughout the specification of the nine seven three pattern the front edge of the cutting id is that lower there is no discussion at all in the specification about any interaction with an upper blade what's your position on the relation with the claim three survives if the other claims go down one zero two one zero three i would agree with the solicitor's position there was no prior art rejection of claim three can i then ask you about claims three and written descriptions that i will tell you that the only one i'm struggling with trying to understand how to ask the question if the words don't have to be there to say you can use the spring clip with the side elements how is this issue supposed to be decided i believe that the proper analysis is to look at the specification what is described and then looked at in the context of the objective person of skill in the art whether that description tells that person that the patent did in fact envision as the invention what is claimed to pose i thought that everything you just said simply restates the question and still hasn't defined what the skilled artisan is looking is looking for what if he's not looking for the words go that may be a deficiency in the cases so i guess i'm looking for help in trying to identify how to think coherently you know useful way about the question when the words and pictures don't show the combination when outside from the outside looking in the the applicant at the time had every right to disclose every limitation their invention everything that they want to link together put together do to support their claims so and looking back i don't believe the standard is it must be absolute language matches absolute language what what what if what if a skilled artisan says i'm looking at this disclosure and i recognize that there isn't it and  what's disclosed here can i come up with the invention he says yes i can i think that hindsight looks although i think the problem with that is that it's high that's that's the point that the that the applicant made here in embodiment i think you have to point to what your invention is and not just say here's a who picks out your favorite bits because otherwise they you would see an influx of very long winded applications and then an applicant that would there is a standard that says something like if again just to the pure we have a something close to a pure example of feature in a body image one other feature embodiment to the question is can you claim you haven't described a combining those two features if if the question is those combining those raise some non trivial issue of how to do it may not be so serious that it's not obvious but some design issue then than that's not enough suppose for a minute just assume make up for some of the overflow that we are questions created on the other side if you are let me let me ask you a question about this that description puts couldn't the patent simply have said that that the elements just reciting generally that that embodiment could have a combination of elements i mean would not have been simple enough to put into the patent certainly could have been put in there and in fact if you look at the closing statement in the ninety seven three just before the claims that's been specifically says that  column two lines twenty two to twenty five that describes a lower stationary blade twelve and an upper normal blade fourteen column two lines thirty seven to forty then tell us if the column is attached by clamping onto the stationary blade twelve and then the light sixty seven to sixty eight as a clamp under the housing of the clippers ok so again you're not focusing as you seem to do when you're brief on the no touching limitation or the overhang limitation you're now focusing on the movable versus stationary limitation certainly because see what's happening here and quite frankly if you look at the nine nine seven three  lobbies lower stationary blades does to that but help hold on to that with the priority of the it but the claim isn't directed to how it's hold on with the lower stationary plate touching the claim is directed to the interaction between that group not and the upper moving what did you actually make this argument before the p t s d i believe it was made a number of times an interaction between the upper moving blade and the roof not that that distinction was drawn over and over again would there any rejections have been the point that there is an argument that that is made that there were some rejections at that you did not traverse do you think that there are any outstanding rejections that even if we agreed with you on everything would still be problematic for you i don't believe so if you agree with me on the one hundred to one of the three rejections relating to the group not interacting with the upper movable bl that's in every single client for whether editable be what about the examiner is rejection i think it's a six thirty three to thirty four that there's no support for at least one side element because  specifications are always talks about specify side elements in the plural i'd say understanding is that and i think when i looked at the relevant section of your three six thirty three to thirty four you didn't traverse that disclosure as i believe that i think is a practical matter as long as you focus on movable vs stationary blades that thinks care of the upper and lower end that war in patient issues that cause confusion when you start comparing up the prior arcs and this