anchor seat to press the rod down into the  the this case you aren't decided on the doctrine of claim that you can clean fine with a very simple coin with respect to the one limitation that still an issue and that is a limitation that requires threads on the anchor seat that extended to a depth below the diameter of the rock when the rot is in the rock receiving channel it's a very clear very simple structural limitation that was arguments that were advanced in process one all of the same invalidity arguments that were banned in iraq on us live with a redesign screw the only change we made was to terminate the thread so equivalent or it shouldn't apply because it's vitiate in a literal claim limitation i think the distinctions are dressed there your honor is what is substituted in place of the ms is there anything in our law which does which gives you any basis for making a neutral determination between application of the vitiated an exception to the doctrine of the quick ones and the doctrine itself a thing in which clarifies what the standard is for applying the doctrine of equivalence to rectify the missing limitation or to refuse to reply the doctrine of equivalence because there is a missing  inconsistent and can't be applied so what do we do with you do you do what i think this court has said to you look to see if there had been something not substituted for the missing element in the claim that is not exactly the same as the claim it is not when you've got nothing that's been as to why nothing with what the supreme court did give us and best wishes of foreseeability s and l as the we can look to see if it would have been foreseeable because i'm saying there are two things if you use divide a red and under that i mean the requirement of there being a threat extending below the all that that's wrong and here's why they lose and this board agrees with us that judge taylor was correct on the design they say they still will because at that point they would go back to the district work say well but there were these other issues change which is again a restatement of the dock and equivalence it's i think it's very close very close if not there is there is no real distinction to be made there what would you have us do i think that the task we're getting into the basis of the doc and equivalence is what we are getting into i don't think you'll find the a sound justification or another there but let me address let me address foreseeability let me also address why i think there's what you're referring to that actually goes all the way down so the what we've been calling the undercut starts at the top one percent clearance and all they're showing is that part of the undercut is with that fuse that is that white area and it continues down below the why did we make the quilt at all why don't we make it and you know i think my point if if if i can fully foresee that this limitation can be avoided with that and undercut or with some other mechanical grafter well being and one of science scientific skill on this are now of course if you're talking because all we're talking about is whether it whether prosecution has in other words i'm thinking of i'm one of skill in the art and recognizing what this limitation encompasses and how it can be avoided and how it can be broadened and limited how the understanding that how can anything within that gras asking you to tell me how can something be unrelated if it's so clearly within the knowledge of want to skill in the art because i feel clearly foreseeable i think they're two completely separate cores because we're talking  have to be able to foresee foresee everything foreseeability is not a limitation of doctrine so there shouldn't be any difference when you're talking about a prosecution history stop and so the reason why there can be a difference with injection isn't foreseeability is you're now having graphics dealing with the past family you're trying to address discrete issues and you're not thinking about what might happen with the planes down the road what could happen you are well what you're trying to do i think that's precisely what you're doing isn't it that you're trying to draft claims that are going to encompass as broad a scope as possible in order to capture what may come down the road isn't that the whole point well certainly but also what you're trying to do is trying to foreseen what you're trying to do was the dress a specific issue that has red and in this case i don't you know that if you adjust your language in some way it's going to have some foreseeable that i'm still struggling to to this term the distinction between tangential and foreseeability well i think the distinction is that tangential missed you don't look at what to be happening in the future what you look at on the test is free for if you look at the relationship as to why you've done something connection with a responsibility or connection with so in other words that the draftsman can pull the wool over the  he can foresee it but maybe to keep the examiner from not foreseeing it and stated in such terms that won't be a lot will somehow raise a tangential ness question he can foresee it  started but but their past must be different there are two different paths and perhaps the distinction i would suggest the distinction in tangential makes you look at the relationship is why you've done something connection with zander foreseeability the second by the way we look at in order to determine whether we can show we don't know why or out because the out that it didn't say stole that particular amendment overcame that priority action so how do you make a ten general if we don't have a starting point so i would submit prosecution history a stop that does apply here because the prosecution if he does not reflect how or why that a member could possibly have overcome the one to want to prioritize their work that was on there