claimed invention as one that proactively or the in the proposed claim to mention is one that proactively prevents these globs from forming and problems occurring and the noun after reference as work now first how to solve a problem after an occurrence and the claims that you seek or how to prevent it from occurring that's exactly the case and so it's your view that there's no shielding at all now or is that there's a shielding means that operates in a different we're not reading it so broadly in fact we think the boredom probably read it just include any structure or said explicitly that it would be any structure regardless of whether or not they're described as long as you perform the function use a structure where you have a little a little base or in the scheme which is deliberate upwardly because that is not disclosed as a disruptions that arise during the process to register even this started stage so soon as the particles start to slow down there's a sensor and that while it's open and at that point you can give increase from the initial spray but it's not doing that and the figure five as well there are you know if you look at figure five and it shows only a few part of around the initial spread word there's many more left in the middle sprayer fourteen you're suggesting that the one in the far right demonstrates here we're all you agreeing that the other two do not in the other two that thirteen is mostly closed so it's it's not  you can ask you to address the boards position the secondary consideration and i mean what i'll tell you what i seem to witness here you have an examiner who rejects and refuses to consider secondary committee considerations because he said they're not commensurate with the scope concept that i don't understand then you have a board opinion that says nothing about commensurate in scope for rather on page twenty four of the board opinion they instead talk about commensurate scope arguments and not even speaking at all about the board's decision and what the reason it rejected secondary considerations so i guess what i'm trying to understand is within the office you have t completely different reasons for why it's being rejected one of the board level which you don't defend on appeal one that you depend on appeal which isn't mentioned in the board decision and so i would like you to explain to me which of these the government is arguing is the reason that the secondary considerations should not be considered i think i laid it all out for you pretty good ok so if you look at the board opinions sentence beginning on a fourteen and says here the examiner correctly found relied upon evidence i'm persuasive because it did not include a comparison of the claim didn't mention against the knocker which teaches the shielding of richmond consistent with the talents argument fails so if you go and you look at what the examiner did and this is a poll done before you go look at the examiner did how am i supposed to construe the board opinion as concluding that the evidence of secondary considerations did not establish commensurate in scope the portion you just read to me very clearly says the reason they reject secondary consideration evidence is because it wasn't measured against the noun after the correct prior art in their mind it says your honor the be quote commensurate in scope the scope of the invention well this is a means plus function claim and as a result you look at the structure rightly so as you pointed out to us and rightly still the structure includes a multitude of possibilities that could serve the function invention that includes every single difference in body methods and capsulated under one twelve otherwise just reject commercial success element evidence is irrelevant because it under that logic there would never be commercial success of any pat claim for goodness sakes al the preamble doesn't represent the closeness prior art is a battle in concept but if he has commercial success evidence of the premium whole i shouldn't think office consider that what are you so afraid of the office didn't consider i could have lived a bomb in a range of point one point nine percent would you be arguing that commercial success evidence of the patent these point five percent melinda mom device would not be considered by the board because it didn't include the entire adopt a rule of law where in he could never ever introduce any evidence of commercial success because what device would have the redundancy of having a shield and an error wall both doing the shielding function you were to ask normal process which is which is the up it is taking the particles into the center of the bed and there's nothing shielded from the initial spray pattern if not all those there so the initial spray patterns in the are there like i all that that's the difference and that's why this inquiry actually shows the patented invention very well i mean it shows the problem the inventor was dealing with is that you get on the ration and you have nothing to and within cylinder fourteen there's air which doesn't have particles in it coming out you see it doesn't made by those arrows that is showing how you protect the initial spreading pattern from having the particles and if you at the bottom of the analysis on the issue about the structure what we do know is that the pattern nowhere describes a structure where you would have a point under the screen which creates the up there which is what white kni