jurisdiction not general it's part of the legal history of our structure was a created one hundred eighty two that we see it from time to time outside of washington event we decided to come to boston we had saturday boston i think probably four times three of them least since i've been in the corps which is twenty five years  collection of cases now today and i mentioned that pattern appeals are increasing the others may be going down but cable but that's not the same as saying mehta doesn't actually disclose to th agent cable your your statements here are somewhat different it seems to me than the argument you're making now and you have a stronger that even if matter is construed as applying to cable it never expressly discloses t h n cable and that there are good reasons why turmel heap i don't remember certainly something or other cable might be different than other kinds of cable the argument you're making now to us are precise and scientific and clear about why they teach each and in particular matters as opposed to all forms of cable and i certainly don't see any degree of specificity mirroring your current theories in the brief to the board and so i'm nervous that you didn't preserve the issues to show me where you think is your best argument is  know what good it necessarily does your client if we vacate the room in a technicality of anticipation when there is a t top obviousness rejection if for whatever bizarre reason the reason the board just didn't address  quite different we can introduce evidence about secondary consideration about how important this invention is we can draw distinctions in fact already did that right you had that opportunity for the other claims that issue here and they have rejected claims i'm sorry the board may not have affirmed the examiners rejection of claim one as obvious but they did go through and affirm the rejections of claims for five nine and ten is  obvious given that four is simply a dependent claim i mean if you wouldn't you have introduced all of your secondary consideration evidence pursuant to that process i believe your honor the output in this case we think it's not a proper process of people because it's another argument for sustaining the judgment and so you're perfectly entitled to make the argument here but we're not going to give you we're second argument line forty seven which is the very beginning sentence of detail description of the invention of the thermal plastic resin that constitutes the compounds and a of the invention are preferably  system but it is a particular type of cable and that is a claim limitation and for anticipation every single limitation has to be present  only as usually did you and i don't i don't understand it seems to me that you're asking us to make fact findings about what the nature or the characteristics are of t h h n cables and then to for anticipation what one of skill in the art would be able to do based on a reference or doesn't it require a higher level of detail terms of as i understand the questions i'm sorry anything a reference teaches one skill in the art which necessarily a compass is everything one skill in the art brings to the table the knowledge that a skilled artist is coming to the table with is good enough for anticipation don't you it has to be automatic one hundred percent and never ever did not come to fruition so inherently is a very very narrow doctrine as this court has defined it and so are you is your argument that t h h and cable cable and so the examiner seems to have potentially found that the met a reference to discourse is t h h n cable i don't know that the board actually expressly said that and that's why i'm wondering do you