contest in the prize clearly suggests that it's rely on the war on the in the surface of the of the channel to fix the position and also one thing is pretty clear from the teaching is that in a contest is that the good mechanical engagement is only with respect to is only with respect to the end of the capital because if you look at it around the surrounding or what your response of the board's essentially your point it up k s r argument that it would have been even if if there was talking about a mechanism that was and was not within the channel that there are only two different their seven i have a little problem with the anticipation conclusion because as the board simply said or the examiner simply said it would inherently work this way and you know putting aside inherent see as a as a difficult con fair what the examiner in the board found was that there are only two possible locations where you could put bears engagement arrangement elements and that those locations would either be on a catheter on the inside of the house channel and as a result of that a person of ordinary ordinary skilly are would look and say ok within my technical grasp i can see that there's only these two places in there for under can't are it would be obvious what's the argument about where hollow channel to stabilize it doesn't really matter where you put it in long as you're able to steam by the catheter so i'm not really sure the point of arguing about where it's located because the whole point is that you're trying to stabilize the catheter in this channel so you're either going to put it on the catheter you're going to you're going to put it in gave it means on the catheter putting asian means on how to channel such that it remains stabilized but you would agree that all the other means just that are express disclosed and they are all outside yes but the examiner in the board looked at those as alternatives they're not examples so they're looking at the engagement arrangements they're not much i'm sorry i need a mechanic aren't not looking at the springs of the balloon those are separate they based their rejection on that particular type of stabilizing element and so when you're looking at that particular type of stabilizing element there's only two places it can be to keep the catheter inside the ho they look so you have a member on one side of the catheter in a member inside the whole a channel that creates this locking movement so that the catheter cannot and so when you combine bear with messina  claimed invention again would be obvious there is this argument about whether or not something can be reformed or not because messina does have a pre formed element included in it but if you look at r specification and their claimed invention there is an element there that's also pre formed in that deal the claims don't make a distinction about whether or not a tax has to be something separate or whether or not it can be formed as a part of the and if you look at the meeting contraption for twenty one this is rental cars invention that is an integral part of the hollow channel just like with seat as element seventy dollars is an integral part of the hollow channel and the board in the examiner made that finding inside it works exactly the same way there's nothing different here correct that some claims were you know they were not my understand is they weren't allowed they weren't argued going forward like they were some projections that ran a car did not they were withdrawing right yeah i was trying to recall if they were with drawn or he just didn't he just wasn't contesting those claims forty want to claim sixty one right those are our specifically said you got to have a specific reason to to to to assert that it's obvious if based on my understanding throughout the whole record there is no specific reason