petitioner realized this and that's why they put in their expert witness dr kayla to say that well when i read parrish i see the word biopsy it means all five layers so based on that they instituted  about cross issue and then talks about to disclose in my reckoning flee for example may be appropriate to examine the mucous lining of the dark the tissue duct and even the adjacent tissue but that same language to some extent parallels itself in the summary of the invention disclosure which is undoubtedly referencing the parag brush it talks about gross tissue again right line twenty through and then it also talks about the importance of more dependable diagnoses and you know so in the background the invention says to diagnose a malignancy this is what you need to do and then it says how this brush is going to result in more dependable diagnoses so what's the problem with the board having looked to the definition given in the prior art description when it then used similar or identical terms in the description of the that because you would find those terms you will find breast tissue your honor you're absolutely right but you don't find adjacent tissue and that's the whole crux of the board's decision you know it gets to the five layers by saying that  you get to jason tissues like but the adjacent tissue is what you need to reach to diagnose a malignant see that's what it says in the background section and then in the summary of the invention it says this new actually it's going to more dependably allow that they don't want to do that so this is jason tissues which is what everything is the whole board's decision is based on that language they say oh if you get adjacent issues you're going through the seventy  you're going through everything you're perforating the ducking and coming out on the other side and that is not what a pair should want to do and that's really the mistake here and the i think the petitioner realizes  mistake they're not making these arguments they're saying oh the board defined grosser tissue sample to him to include adjacent issues but the board never did that the board defined gross issue sample to say  layers and that was rejected because that's not what it means in a biopsy can be one layer two layers three layers four layers five layers and the there is no teaching in the parish of anything more than a gross tissue sample of biopsy these are a bunch of words but it really comes down to the same thing just you take a sample from the first layer and that's what the board found in the other two i p r's where we dropped the peel and to dig to get past just taking it from that first layer and to go down into the five layers to go to the the only the only difference between the decisions is they had to rely on this adjacent issue language in the background of the invention that describes a biopsy forceps that parachute tells you it doesn't want to of the six zero nine patent those claims just say i'm just going to take from the very top the first layer i'm just going to take a sample from that and that that's not the same issue as the claims in the court panel you're taking five letters and claims three and four and claim three those are a completely different kind of epithelium they're there in the in the it doesn't have three layers and i mean there's multiple reasons the other reason is for claims three and four there were multiple grounds of rejection and the case west as well there's multiple grounds you don't have collateral estoppel lest any of them throughout the entire specification gross tissue sample or biopsy and i know there's a lot of back and forth as to what biopsy means but at the end of the day as the record developed during the deposition  words close enough thank you for a strict identity of words and you've got to have those exact words and that's the wrong test the test for anticipation is what does one of skill of the art understand the with about thirty five years of practice he understands that when they're using these terms of adjacent issue gross tissue sample biopsy the meaning of correction is that they are the the pressure rush i the pressure reference and i'm and a column to about mine i think eleven it is an object of invention to provide a method an apparatus that can better collect a tissue sample from a structure that doctor from another and it's comical structure reduces the risk of perforating the doctors compared with the known techniques so there's a clear tie there of pressure of the goal and what that's been done in the prior art now is trying to improve upon that with capable the pressure rush is capable of reaching the seventy cosa and that's really important because there's also been a little bit of a battle over the application of the in re schreiber case appellant has an argument that this was a finding  and again this issue this issue of whether pressure reaches the suddenly cosen that's the only contested issue there is there's there's a lot of noise about other things in the brief about sufficient those were not being considered and that's one of them so the sufficient stiffness arguments not properly before us here additionally the court on eighty six made a factual finding with regards to parameters teaching of sufficient view if we agree with you and find substantial evidence for the board's fact findings with regard to pressure we don't have to reach the collateral estoppel issue or do you see that as a predicate do we do we have to reach identical findings identical these are not identical findings that the issues were actually like again because they were claimed for the six or nine patent requires that we go to th that the board are still considered to be separate cases so that's why we believe it's collateral stoppel if they were viewed as one case then it would be a lot of case of reaching the summit cosa one skill in the art testimony confirms this the way pressured uses its terms confirms this and so based on substantial evidence the board got it right  don't perforated the dot what does that mean that means the brush doesn't go to jason tissue that means that what they relied on with the borderline on the whole crux of the board's case and column one line sixty one of sixty get there this is not describing parishes brush this is the linchpin of the board's decision that you get to five layers and when the doctor from which this testimony he only has only testimony where he really said yes you'll go through everything was when they asked him about this same language language that describes the prior art forceps technique that they were trying to improve on not language that describes  do you have to perforate the doc to be able to collect samples from the sudden cosa you don't have to but that was the argument that petitioner made in their brief they looked at this language but it's that there's no teaching anywhere in kharaj or in the board went through this and tried to find it where where you could make you could find that fact and the only way they could find that fact was to go to the background of the invention and that's the function the same way there's not evidence that it's identical in construction in this case that's the whole that was the whole argument of the case and and this arguing about glandular at the ceiling as around expert admitted glandular up is the ileum doesn't have five layers so the fact that in in the six zero nine claim three or four that it was talking about that we went through glandular at three million that doesn't help it's a different issue it doesn't have five layers and their expert admitted that  the board just made a mistake with the reference the mistake was then compounded when they took when they were a lot of doctor from which is testimony and they asked about that same for language and that's where he suggested we definitely go all the way through and that's what they're