question in this appeal is why did congress include the word we would submit the patent offices attempts to define your original compass all applications other than applications for reissue pat argument but language what language in the statute is collided with by their construction the language is any pattern that issues from an original application and end the whole focus is the word original because the me not good the meaning you would like but it's giving meaning it doesn't offend a principle that well meaning is obliterated by the construction i don't i don't disagree but what i would submit is that first of all it's inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the word which all or maybe doesn't have an ordinary meaning may become depends on the context it can mean different things in different contexts we don't don't dispute that you said a minute ago was that's wild and subsequently divided and divisional application so that it's in context in a relative sense why is that inconsistent with the pattern of interpretation of the two additional reasons one out of over seven million patents that it is there in roughly slightly over ten thousand reissue patents that there finish a makes no sense because under there to finish an original application that was filed after nine hundred ninety nine for which a reissued patent was sought would be exempt from injured parties different places and there were a cake from the contact in wicked appear with respect your honor we're very meaning doesn't mean it used exactly the same in every setting that in the case it would be called the exclusive meet or very meaning means it can be used different language which is section one twenty provide it's that it continuing application as a matter of law quote shall have the same effect as the filed on the dated prior application that means by statute in answer the question though as to what the word original means because it is having the same effect or having the same effect of filing or having the benefit of prior art all interesting concepts but nonetheless that application that we're talking about the continuation application that we're talking about from which the patent in question issued was file that's not the case it's the first step the cage well let's improve your argument is that the first application is the original application or if it's a continuing in part an application that is the first one that provides support for the claim subject then so so it or parties reexamine can be applied to hear an application and see ips to the extent that new batter that the application claims priority well but it could be different dates applied to different things in different  with respect to see if i can what just try to answer my question i don't know how the patent office would administer that when you have a c i p with claims that that there's no doubt in that in discussing reissue patents it's quite reasonable to contrast that with the bridge patterns and we don't dispute that it can be used in that context but the ordinary usage of the word what i asked the inconsistent with this interpretation section want twenty speaks in mandatory terms shall have the same effect ok as though it were filed on the date of the prior application which means as a matter of law congress has said this continuing application shall be treated exactly the same this court described in transco products first performance contracting that shall have the same effect means had the benefit of it in fact that application and why because congress is specified this shall have the same effect as if it were filed on the earlier date there is no dispute if this were filed on the earlier date nine hundred ninety four there would be no injured parties reexamination under the explicit language of congress shall have the same effect means it is treated the same way what about the fact that you were talking with an active i guess it was in ninety nine original the patent office has consistently manifested a desire a policy desire to constrain the use of continuing applications that may or may not be a good policy issue but it is an issue that ultimately is one for congress to decide not for the patent office and patent office attempted to convince congress of that and has consistently failed indeed the patent office is recent rules restricting the number of continuing applications that can and this is why i asked this question just to clarify your position i thought your interpretation of the language of the day was that original application only spoke to the parent i think that would clearly be subject to enter part rigs emanation because the original application which is the first application to provide support for the plane better was filed after ninety nine cooper's definition isn't working it's unworkable because an african controls the priority cooper links the existence or nonexistence of a priority plan to regional and coopers mistake of course is that a priority claim runs on a the patent office had a long standing definition a term of art definition that was in the m p now four months ago this court interpret the phrase divisional application in five this court said when congress passes a law for an agency to administer and there's nobody else minister in the statute and it affected a provision needs to be interpreted by the united states there's no one else who can interpret i think congress would original application in the n p t and of course the reference to the section one twenty one title thirty five and your brief addressed all of those and  from your perspective those are all sort of in context relative terms so that was not sort of definitional of what an original application is there was no discussion in either part reeks of a number of other sections in the for example is in section two or one that sections as domestic fall into three different types applications for patent under one zero one two in useful machine process a set for plant patent design patents and it goes on to say domestic national applications include original provisional plant design reissued division continuation it's not used in a relative term in a relative setting in that section it's that simply lists out different types of domestic national applications and differentiate between an original and continuation of the same language is used in section two zero one zero six see that says an application filed under thirty seven  f r one point fifty three b which is sort of the default provision covering all applications maybe it says maybe an original a continuation a division a continuation in any original reissue or substitute provisional non provisional application any continuation application etc so there are several places in the m p which seem to differentiate between an original application and a continuation application not in a relative sense but in a categorical sense what's what do you say about that because it's it's not in the breaks and i did it seems to me that that these are significant sections that should be considered first your honor i would say that i don't know that all of those lists that you just referred to are mutually exclusive i think one of the lists it was planned patent and then continuation till the patent original those are necessarily mutually exclusive terms i would also system and seek its benefits after that day you will bear the burdens of the system the system changed and so when they entered it again they were all its birds to the extent that they think in a party examinations are now council referred  for purposes of correction but when congress for example when they change the patent term from a seventeen year from issue time to a twenty year from finding there is no question that an application or patent like coopers that entered the system after the effective date of the year very man's agreement to act it out have a twenty year term measure compliance and not the seventeen congress when they make a prospect of law it applies to people who enter the system regardless of whether or not the really this is some of the hard government or in effect neutral and don't really provide guidance then this may turn on the extent to which the person or who says entitle to some deference what does that mean here it means to the extent that our interpretation has the power to persuade to the extent it's a reasonable analysis based on a consistent approach that if that is persuasive what the reasoned analysis congress was not referring to the first in a chain they didn't say originally they said an original they were referring to a category of applications and none of their definitions go to a category they do take your application in the context of what's being bill a number of words and he did well in their interpretation every time in typical snippets the writer for example in section one twenty one is referring to the original that's already been mentioned in the course of discussing two applications  your honour's i agree with the core of the fundamental issues here is what is the definition of original application i think the good news for all of us is we don't really need to go through a lot of histrionics to make that determination congress has given us a road map on this issue as we all know deborah twenty nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine is the date in which this legislation is passed roughly one year later december seventh two thousand as we've heard the patent trademark office issued a notice in the federal register and not a small decider the notice contains a couple of key items that i'd like with my very brief time to address with the court the first is that it identifies they will be using the term original application consistent with section in the regimes pacifically that flaw being that apple can't that a patent owner is permitted under the statute to initiate their own interparty reexamination against themselves the patent office requests in the federal register notice that dinner parties reexamination congress corrects the issuing that the p t o on page ten of the federal register notice identified congress or acts a few other portions of the statutory regime as well congress does not weigh in on the issue of the propriety of the p t o s definition of choice for original application i see my time it's ron my original agreement with the government was to have seven minutes i would hope that the court would proceed permit me to proceed for a few more thank you your honor specifically this issue is one we know about namely that the con will view here is essentially a ratification of the p t o s approach to the regime and its choice of interpretation the definition of original application is not new it's twenty five years old as we know it goes action after the fact is a lost of its attention and its goals with this particular statute in particular it has a decided few based on the day a case that there is a presumption it's persuasive evidence what congressional intent was when they do not disturb the importation or in this case the approach undertaken by the administrative agency when they are undertake subsequent modifications to the same  repeal the agency's interpretation is persuasive evidence that interpretation is the one intended by the abuser to keep judges point that there what difference does that make if there's nothing to indicate that congress even had that in mind what we understand your honor that congress eventually was presented with that issue and we know that when the federal register issue as i indicated that to keep pieces that i call the court's attention specifically the first identifying on page two that the patent office was going to be implementing this approach as it related to the definition found in the m p e p three regional application and the second eight pages later it asked congress to adjust its natural to fix the problem with parties being circumstances what you will from the bench if the court is inclined to do so today i suspect that all parties would would welcome the ability to give guidance to the eastern district of texas as it relates to the specific issue we have previously file thank you out of like briefly address three point i want to begin with with the statement that the patent office made that section one twenty quote is about priority and that's their effort to cabinet session one twenty one the text of section one twenty doesn't say that it says shall have the same effect and interestingly enough the argument that office made is precisely the same argument that was made and rejected in the transco products case and in particular this  section one twenty does does not exempt the best mode requirements from its reach and therefore this court must accept the plain and precise language of section one twenty as encompassing the saying there that question wasn't priority but the  shall have the same effect means exactly what it says and to invent the patent office had no response other than what we call it was only priority we don't have to focus on any other effects that's not what statutory language since circumstances and i think that is a remarkable example for them to use because in the section can change in the terms of the patent congress used a different phrase in particular congress said in section forty four of five in the a i p a that apply not to original applications to any application so congress knew very well the difference between any applications and original applications we fully agree that the terms applied to any implication we don't just agree it can also be used to contrast it with a reissue application that it potentially can be interpreted both ways depending upon the context and so the question in terms of interpret ng that whether a continuing application is original application that my wife's not a lawyer that will but if you're reading well or her usage is that's about a straightforward if you can get and you were married usage of is this an original application under any ordinary usage it's not the simplest and easiest read we would submit which decide this case is the statutory text found in thirty five u s c section one point that isn't clear reexamination would be an appropriate under that statutory language the patent office does not have the ability to expand its authority beyond what congress has given congress deliberately limited the reach of