writings over time and distill them down in a way that's easy finally to digest in the courtroom so let's begin with the recapture because for me that is a difficult subject from the perspective of how it's been written by this court but easy for purposes of the fact pattern here and the fact pattern here is quite significant because as the court saw in our writings the examiner restricted out the divisional claims that we discussed in our papers and she says and that the following restricted out because it sets forth different modes of operation and would be expected to produce different products that is absolutely the core of why the purposes of recapture we succeed on that fact because there is nothing in madame solicitors writings that can refute that you saw in their papers they say the following what happened is the following that there was the application that is this issue here that was a sister case and the examiner took them up together and somehow by dint of that act the examiner refused to amend withdraws or does something magical to the restriction and more importantly to the words that are spoken in the record there's no case law to support that there's no evidence to support that period number two they discuss some concept about the change in scope what that is also incorrect because if you take a look at the surrogate claiming that we have forty four as i recall them today those claims began with the removal of pressure during the cooling stage and the so there is no amendment that changes in a way the fundamental words that the examiner used full stop this case is unique because this is a case in which the examiner sets out the stage for the defeat of the concept of the permissible recapture and i've seen nothing in this papers and there's no case law to support a different conclusion and distilling all of this down that's why we succeed on that subject let's move on now to obvious for obviousness it's also a simple task why because you look at the crucible of one of situation where the reference discusses the concept of using an open mold and moving material in direct molding to result in chain orientation reduce you would not cross link or in this case you radiate before you direct injection molding because if you do then that material will not mold in the being achieved there you have then not that you have the desire to have certain goals which are dimensional stability transparency and increase in melting point the complete opposite of the claims surrogate claims forty and eighty four so kids of the world standing alone is doing something different in medicine listeners breathe she actually says that all they did with the pick if you're looking exactly to use you will not achieve the goal of zachary's if you're looking at the claims of the human patent where they describe as slight the radiation that is for something different and that doesn't cheat a certain that's it that's the simple most dramatic way to distill it down for recapture it is fact base the examiner made certain statements on the record they've never been withdrawn or refuted they've been characterized in a way that isn't supported by the case dealing with here in order to have a flawless characterized in these two particular figures the material has to be able to move to the extremities here which later at the captain if you cross link take a look  mold as reflected because by cross linking you're increasing the rigidity of that material and it is the antithesis of what was described in zachary's as a very clear way to orient product that has nice oriented strands later in a post processing step if you desire other characteristics then you can put on the radiation completely different affirm the board for two reasons the board found the claims to be compatible both because there are obvious and because they are in improper recapture of surrender subject matter so this court need only a from one of the two rejections to dispose of the appeal however we submit that both of the rejections are proper and fully supported by the record first with respect to that whether the timing process which makes a difference in terms of the quality of the plastic you get the well the whole purpose of the cross linking and that's gotten to the moon or is to increase dimensional spill data increase the million temperature improve transparency both of the references i know the point you to particular figures and says that they wouldn't work there's absolutely no indication in zachery just that that would not work even for those particular examples moreover the said to hold the product and then at the end it cools it to get the final product so it's doing basically the same thing and it cross links first and there's that that that has no impact on its ability to that's exactly what you tomorrow's doing tomorrow is doing compression molding as well and it's completely successful like no tomorrow he and millions of after the cross linking and then at that point is that exactly the s between the melting temperature so hundred forty and and somewhat above that all the temperature would it be fair to say in a kind of rough sense that the kid ammara strengthens the product it's of the beginning right and then has to melt in order to mold where it is like a reed is doesn't do the cross linking it's a beginning and therefore can mold without having to heat all the way to melt and then it well there's certainly nothing easier of the two references that suggest that and i think it's really just a matter of what extrapolating really from what you were saying that the claim to ranges of of the heating who are overlapping nonetheless were were different in that it would suggest that the way the molding was done was  the the example five products that it's making but but i think it's not because the the substance after the early cross linking is more difficult to work with adults now there's certainly no suggestion of that read is that there's restriction and it's all basically stems from the most a positive decision and a line of the most of us decision which was trying to reconcile a portion of our m p p on the facts of this case there's clearly a fall squarely within the recapture doctrine and i can explain what i think for most of us a decision says in a moment but let me just say if you look at page thirty one of our read bri there for at least the first two steps of the recapture analysis with respect to the other limitation which they're talking about which has to do with this narrowing limitation the melting temperature live limitation first it's not even clear that as narrowing with respect to one of the dependent type of plant it's actually overlaps with but beyond that this court has repeatedly said  because they were not related to the circular attachment pad which was the broadening in north american container the court held that the the narrowing limitations were not related to the inner wall insulation which is the broadening and court held that the snake resistance means was no way related to the shape of the haptics so this case falls squarely within the recount sure case on your phone counsel ride as you alluded to at the beginning of your discussion of this issue heavily on the restriction requirement and i you in responding to that in your read brief that point you pointed us to the geneva and gerber page thirty nine if you prefer i read those cases and i didn't see them as suggesting this issue is there something i missed in the reading of those cases for there another point that  than the precise and question with respect to recapture and with respect to the all to the extent there is any sort of relationship between our restriction requirements and the court said is that section of the m p p is really talking about situations that are outside where the recapture doctrine is not even triggered and i think it's instructive to look at the example that's in the m p p there because the  and that is not the case that we have here here the claims are essentially the broadening limitations are central to what was surrendered so i don't think we're completely different simply this court has never said anything to that effect and i think there are a number of reasons i mean i've certainly there are situations where restriction could be admittedly where it could be evidence or you know think and i just want to add a couple more reasons why i think one of the reason we were explaining here is certainly in this on these facts the exam nor did demonstrate some  independent ones about the research requirement as evidenced by the fact that you know at first it was it was three hundred planes exam there are issues the restriction divide in twelve groups later when they filed the divisional for the exam the recombined groups two and five and group six  twelve and even on in the exam answer the examiner indicated that these are what even if even the i made this an earlier research requirement these claims were closely related and the surrender that akin to prosecution history of stoppel and in the world the prosecution history of fog of this court is always looked to surrender is made in continuations or other related applications and determine whether or not there was going to thanks judgment so we're not suggesting the creation of a new good rule we're not suggesting by dint of a restriction requirement that anything need to be changed what we're saying is that the words of the examiner that went along with the restriction requirement guide us and that alone sets for different modes of operation and would be expected to produce different products period patent to plead to be distinct subject matter is not within the confines correctly she embraces the concept and i'm not going to tell the court what it said in its own writings but she embraces the concept that when you have a passion to be distinct subject matter as articulated by the examiner that george misdiagnose never surrender never not second reading these below and the end result is different and of story there is nothing that would come in this record or any other one of ordinary skill  combine a single element of kid to morrow directly opposite of the teachings of zachary's to result in what we claim is the invention it's that simple and that's my