and to be consistent the input terminal of the in tennis circuit and the and coils for the and terminals of the antenna quail must be electrically distinct from each other here when you look at specifically at the top of column fifteen kind of down through line thirty to anyone reading that description right there and then turning to figure six or reading it in conjunction with figure six would recognize the points jean age were mislabeled and figure sex and that is the only intrinsic evidence that  fifteen if you read down through that entire section you actually get to a numerical example that shows an order of magnitude shift in the piece from the input of t soon soon when this was discovered i gather it was too late or whatever in the procedure to issue some sort of correction or to error one that would be apparent to anybody reading the specification nobody spyder didn't to the reply argument i gather i don't i don't know whether it was spotted earlier in the context of the enter part think where it gets really is with the first the separate recitation of and input terminal and that and terminals of it and coil and most importantly the first  a deliberately established first impedance that really cuts to the central aspect of the invention which is the ability to then apply a control signal and establish a second amendment to this claim was that because they now are claims not involved to this proceeding sufficiently to care the first and second you peter certainly  dependant claim fourteen calls out a higher impedance point that occurs with the application of a control signal in the passive mode of operation but i think the other reason as a practical matter is that  the value of this patent lies in the past and an amendment of that type to figure one certainly impacts the the value of the patent and a recognition that you've well over a year ago and probably still today it's not the ideal venue to amend claims during an i p r so i think there were a lot of reasons both well certainly not the patent specification i think consistently and repeatedly and exclusively shows and in tennis circuit where the input terminal is e and the separate we recitation of the endpoints of an intent to quell and the input to the circuit those are not just superfluous claim elements they have and are supposed to have some meaning  isolation i think the person skilled in the r might be scratching his head and saying why why call out the first impedance here doesn't make sense to me maybe i look back at the specification and i see that the central aspect of this invention is the ability to set that first impedance in a circuit that has that first impedance so that you can do what's done in in claim fourteen which independently sets  the the control signal in the passive mode and puts a higher impedance point in the circuit so the claim thirteen may be the another way to look at it as it sets up the structure of the antenna circuit input signal going out of the antenna and that's why the prior art has no electrical distinction the inputs to the antenna circuit in the prior art or the the endpoints of the antenna  unrequited expert testimony testimony backed up what is apparent from the face of the claims i would agree with the observations that the court already made this morning about the claim language and the specification i would just add two additional points number one is that there was expert expert testimony that h t c offered below in this case which supports the board's findings on the claims and the claim language and the specification understand the court's question correctly there was no inconsistency between the specification and the experts testimony the experts said a person of ordinary skill would look at the intrinsic record would see point g not the board has to weigh all the evidence that's in the record in the board did so here and certainly if there had been and a stark inconsistency between what the expert was saying and what the intrinsic record shows then it would be a different situation but weigh all sides the source's credibility the support and reach a conclusion yes i would agree and that i believe that is what the board did here  i i do not hear and i c t challenging any of that expert's testimony i would also know as a second point that the claim fourteen still stands and claim fourteen was not challenged simply says that the director shall have the right to intervene in an appeal from an inner party's review under under the in addition of what mr mcmanus know that i would also say that when the office does intervene to defend the board decisions it's doing so in the public interest the ultimate goal of i p r zone of all proceedings before the board is to are to get patentability determinations right and so when we show up in court to defend the board we're also acting in the right thank you roger just just one quick point there is no support in the patent specification for the situation where the in tennis circuit has an input terminal and the end points of the end terminal as electrically the same point and that's the primary reason why and of c is and of c t is asking this court to read