twenty four cannot be prosecuted in a reissue because then because it had been presented the motto and had been a conscious decision to delete it and a conscious decision not to file additional on i mean a division some i may have made a different election or i made up a car made him i may have made a conscious decision not to prosecute someone i wouldn't be here because a redo would specifically apply to claims that are identical to those that have been prosecuted and i'm your decision about the visual everything because you can now or third america claim these claims had never been presented the already plane had been presented these claims have never been presented because if i presented them originally then you know readership more or less what you want to do is substitute an entirely distinctly different convention with the invention you did claim that's not claiming more or less for the same  is claiming an entirely different invention so i don't know that the language of the statute supports the type of error that you want to say you made here by failing to allege claims for a distinctly different invention that you hadn't thought  counsel point out say that they've only acquiesced for claims that are substantially identical to the originally non elected claims right i read it or read it doesn't define what it means substantially  in contempt proceedings for example that the exact language used to determine that a contemporary brought it's hard for me to conclude that these claims are substantially identical at least under my understanding of that into now not all other subject matter that's the things the invention you chose but only the other classes of claims that you presented that's all they've agreed to how in the world is a restriction requirement dividing between two claims  agreement that they will never pursue claims of any other nature because that that is a holding while or even if you agree to override it doesn't apply that this is a distinct invention from was not elected and in this case falls under wire claims to a distinctly different invention than what they had previously claimed in the two reissues would issue why would the p t o say ok suppose in original prosecution you have two distinct inventions and we made you restrict them you pursued this first one not the second one then you realize there's a third invention not even arguably within either of the first two why can't you come in with a certain invention in reissues of the the first set of claims and go after if not trying to recapture  already gave up and that the heart of the kernel underneath a reader is not letting you recapture what you gave up so why is the piece feel allows you in normal circumstances to file reissue claims to a distinctly different invention can you interesting subject matter if you want to protection one twenty one twenty one you have to file individual who don't even have to go that far if it least wyler says that that's you alley's interpretation of wilder would allow the universe to not be inconsistent because her petition a while ago would be only if the claims would fall within the same group that believe in that there was no restriction requirement that the things they were trying to come back the invention that they were trying to come back in years later to get what something that was completely that we paid to hold you had to be a logical situation you find yourself that well you know th boy was this situation where they were doing i was trying to broaden non elected subject matter but actually doyle broadened his claims he so that was a normal reissue situation show again she acquiesced in restriction ramage she agreed to that one invention and she's not trying to broaden or narrow that one invention if i can just briefly if the court agreed with  thirty three fall in the sky it still would not be sufficient written description and the reason is because there's some predictability in the article that station itself shows that only one can a body out of the two unpredictability that would normally be required to say that one species disclosure is not well i think the opposite is actually true to an a body art itself is not an predictor i'm sorry the antibod it's not in predictable whether or not in a body that animosity that they want to treat diseases caused by aggregating proteins whether or not that antibodies to work is not a predictable because they have a structure they say that the antibodies that binds to start at the top will have this function of preventing are treating this disease and they've shown in the nurse specification that not every finding site again i didn't find something that's better but the fact is i've i've determined that anyone does exist of have that and how to do it in a very simple easy way that shown how to do this screens in this bag therefore i believe that the that it is