what is it in column three that i can look at it and give me some comfort that what it's talking about based on a parabolic or conical body of revolution it's not talking about  any any vertical plane so from any angle and you're going to end up with something that's the same on either side so the same shape in the same length and that's why the sharara friend does not anticipate it very clearly has science that are very different tyson offered examples in his in his at declaration that show this exact sort of shape based on figure one where you have clearly links or associate that structure to the function were cited in the claim and these are the center posing council made some argument that the functional language in the claim is a looser into a focused aim or something like that and and then the actual of claim language doesn't say it quite like that it just talks about what is the talk about god in the light towards the writing the light diffuse conceptually than than the actual functional language that's attached to the structure that you're pointing to as being the corresponding structure i guess i'm wondering what are we supposed to do under those circumstances well you still need to find a link between a disclosure structure and functional language and that's that's what we pointed you here and i think it's important to note that wack hasn't pointed to any sort of linking language in the alternative court cautioned against in donaldson where it said that even though we are in the context of gratis reasonable interpretation we still need to follow the statute because the statute suggests what is reasonable tells us what's reasonable you have to construe that the term according to what's disclosed in the festive occasion is there some application of the broadest reasonable interpretation in trying to define what the corresponding structure is purposes of a means plus function limitation so here i guess one could argue that the board maybe was faced with a choice do we go with a broader understanding of the corresponding structure that has symmetrical side walls but because we are applying the broadest reasonable interpretation and let's say that maybe both are reasonable choices we're going to go with the broader top except of just a column meter what should the board do when it's applying brought us reasonable interpretation in the context of a means to this function limitation when it's trying to understand identify what the course by structure is so if there is an application for cross reasonable interpretation and where there could be difference i don't think it would be at the stage of the analysis where statute has told us you have to construe that the term according to what is disclosed in the structure perhaps at an earlier stage we're trying to figure out what the function is then maybe there would be a little bit more room for brought us reasonable construction but i think once we get to the stage we're told to follow the statute and that is to look at what's in the specification and to see what the patentee actually disclose and that you know here we airplane in exchange for claiming something in functional language and so the board's analysis leaves the switches with a situation where we're actually interpreting the claim in a in a manner that is far too broad here function limitation does not extend to all means for performing a certain function and so you know under under the correct interpretation the kind of correct construction of optical means one which would there is simply now anticipation he can you remind me even before the board did you offer explanations of what  discussion of what this term symmetrically lateral meant in front of the well i believe that in dr tyson is expert declaration he sets this out he explains that in order for you in order to to change the path light there needs to be something for it to reflect again and so if you were to look at i believe it's her applied wreath at age thirteen that's a perfect illustration of the concept that we're talking and that's why he testified that symmetry about multiple planes would characterize the lateral surface and this is in a situation again where we have something that is even close to being symmetrical with the show rob reference none of the parties argued it was close the very different shape and i just quickly know that that's not how it was argued to the port neither whack nor phillips argued it as a question of anticipation it's clearly one of flame construction and certainly the board treated it as a claim construction issue ok would make a difference whether that's a symmetrical or not in fact that's actually what they're arguing with respect to if you look at figure two i don't know what the lens of you know there's only two two sites that are shown for the column it or i don't know what the what the other two look like i don't know what their links are and now that would be conjecture i want to quickly shift to this idea why are we even looking at symmetrical right what is what is symmetrical in the specification doing with talks about that merely enabling something isn't enough to to be to include that structure in you know to to make that the corresponding structure on them useful function allows so that are you making an argument that in fact there is no structure disclosed in the in the spec that corresponds for one hundred six purposes not at all there is definitely structure disclosed insurer and the board actually credited that in a given position of the flashlight there's enough pressure from the spring and from the structure of the flashlight that holds the  through the middle and end through any to the middle part from any angle you're going to end up with something that's the same on either side evilly so so it would have rotational not it would have lateral symmetry in the way that with with the reasons why that the patent explains that there is no movement and just to go to one of the things that was mentioned which is this figure two environment where there are multiple column meters there's a