appeal thirty one thirty five united states allen bridges united states postal service and appeal thirty two three morass of vs united states postal service on the argument list will are here argument first in goldberg versus past appeal fifteen nineteen and twelve good morning please p improperly broke this limitation into two separate limitations only to saying or only another that is an improper construction of the claim because it is not the broadest reasonable construction in view of it can't be correct i agree it is also not consistent with how one skill in the art would understand the teachings of the corporate specification it is under skewed it that a person of skill in the art would understand that colbert discloses a method where the substrate is placed into the saying or another chamber based on a wrong as crank instruction the board wrongly found that specification of the goldberg application did not provide adequate written description support for the involved claims because there is no disclosure of exclusively moving the support to another chamber support necessarily goes into the same or another reaction chamber during the repetitive steps of the polymer synthesis process there is no place else correct place claimed seventy three it's a talk about the placed into when it's brought back into that bank chambers is placed into either the same one it came out of or a different one isn't significant which one is placed into and there's there's no tracking mechanism to make sure it goes back into the so so the board found that the culprits as keisha described movement of the support to the same or another reaction chamber in particular at age twenty six and twenty seven they found that the combination of the valve system chord is activated placed in a reaction chamber for one hundred different steps removed there from for further activation and replaced in the same or another reaction chamber yet another monomer additional step so under a but even with that comprise the language good doesn't the claim require the use of at least two different reaction three were clenched any three seventy three so at it does require that you chamber and then moving it back into one of the six reaction chambers it has to go into either the same one it was in or another i'm confused about what relief you're seeking in the blue green and in the written by other attorney there's a blanket statement that everything have to be reversed there's no differentiation among the claims i understand your argument you have an argument with respect to claim seventy five it's quite separate from the anything involving the other crime so i'm puzzled that the relief sought there seems to be  and all we know the claims seem to fit in somewhere else but you seem to argue that you're entitled to reversal for all of them because there may have been a mistake with respect to seventy five and arguably also seventy three i don't own the only quick i'm hearing from you is that the error is because they didn't give us the benefit of what we ought to have gotten from the fact that we used the transition word comprising his or some other source of all our position would also be that that border construed exclaims with respect to the aspecific asian as opposed to the proper construction with respect to the because they broke that they broke the klang instruction into only the same or only another so in figure six say that support can be moved into any one of the six chambers and could be the same chamber that was in for the first modern synthesis or it could be another so so clearly the specification describes  could have a process these are iterative process you could have a process with ninety nine repeats and in fact frequently there are more in this technology process with ninety nine repeats and the first ninety eight of those moves back and forth through the same reaction chamber the ninety ninth stack that ninety nine to ration minor deposition according to every other claim but claim seventy five chamber underlying another in each quote from that point and curiously and five weeks to conveniently with respective claims seventy five the i don't think it is your honor because if you are describing a process that has two alternatives you can move to the same reaction chamber or can move to another reaction change and certainly the board there is this conception or misconstruction of the board's way the more never sat in its discussion the figure six say that this was be used in such opposite systems or alternative systems we never got to any woman that was an issue i don't agree with that analysis of the board but that's what the board is saying that you could modify the parallel chamber system of six set so that you could move the support into the same reaction chamber left in the we're looking maybe i can i am sorry you are looking for the phraseology of the board's decision that counsel for goldberg directed us to just a minute ago that the board hel to move into the same but that's not distraught that's the board saying we accept we did it the parallel base of six sat for the purpose of written script clear be used in such a process but such a process is not described because the alternative of another is nowhere set forth but what about page fifteen ninety four of the appendix which is the goldberg application page forty six although primarily described as performing the same synthesis dept in parallel the bank of reaction chambers could also be readily modified to carry out two poor poor multiple independent chemistry goldberg tells you in its brief whether it's performing the same steps simultaneously or independent chemical synthesis steps that is one monomer in reaction chamber egg and different monomer in reaction chamber b even then your honor the goldberg process and apparatus are even different to whether the shuttle the same show the support to the same reaction chamber  different reaction chamber in fact if you consider that the reaction chambers could in a much more complicated system be altered so that each one did a different step at the same time it would make more sense to shut up the same support you know now it doesn't say one mom or dish and it says independent chemistry steps so now you had each  it doesn't care it's indifferent it is easier and the testimony of guilt that wasn't considered in rendering the decision but that testimony is there it was to be used in the enablement motion in motion control something counts refer to you know have to watch where is it going next no that's described because the goldberg occasion simply doesn't contemplate moving it to another reaction chamber it's not important it's not enough your honor not to through bit what's clear what that just gets you possibly to the point where it's obvious is described as moving to one or another that's wrong it's not enough to read it out it's not enough to fail to say no you must as the architect to support the claim positively to adequately described in the written description section of the application then in my conny i should be saying placing you support into a key member and then later in your leadership that chamber it's moving to be the same other but it doesn't take the place of if that claim had been presented you can argue whether it would have been considered capital or not i think that's been done but there would have been a motion for no interference in fact because that's not bass's invention that's the problem bass is invention it's a move it to one another chamber not the same or another but to an up i do want to tell you just used to piss off on that point if goldberg is indifferent and goldberg is saying it could be another it could be the same it really doesn't matter what your say that that's that's not enough to encompass a recitation requiring another it's not enough to support a recitation requir a decision to support and it down subsequent to briefing that's going to bridge the no to the maybe decision that again repeats the formula that you've got to raise an argument below that standard for written description is what the specification would have reasonably conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art goldberg assertion which is not disputed in the record is that the goldberg specification teaches  moving a substrate into the same or another reaction chamber at it it's not relevant whether it's the same or another there are only two possibilities when you're moving that support back into that bank of reaction chambers it has to