must have gone by really fast for you you know they say that time flies when you're having fun but in the real secret is that it really flies when you're working hard so this must have been a real blur for you a court as used in the one seven patent the term body has a definite structural term which represents a specific component that is the outer housing of the claim to the claim body is not the it does not include the mandrel and it does not include any other specifically identified interior components of the tool term body is used consistently throughout the specification as a separately identified component using the reference numeral five ten every time the term body is never applied to any other component of the tool within a specification and it shone the body five ten in the figures as having a separate hatch patterns distinct distinguishing it from the other components such as the even the drawings in the employee's own briefs show that the patent self teaches what is a body and what is not the body just as green isn't the same as the color orange which are the colors that the police chose in identifying the body is green and the orange to be consistent with the argument that the board had taken that it was just a structural placeholder or that examiner at taken that it could include any component you would think the apple would then have to color all components except the arm green correct and in order to make the rejection that the examiner made in the board upheld they had to take the body and the mandrel and the cam of medicine which are three separate components and say we're going to construe all of those as the body and then compare that to this festive occasion of the eight one seven patent not even the claim and so that is used in the specification we can say body is broad the claim doesn't include a mandrel so we can say that so claiming the body in the claim includes everything but in both your argument is it the construction or the bride was it was a reasonable is a that is correct why is it a reasonable well it's unreasonable because it's incorrect as a matter of law you can't you can't have a broadest reasonable interpretation that is inconsistent with the specification that is inconsistent with how a term is used commonly in the art and as we've seen in the set of that start with the claims is inconsistent with the claims it is inconsistent with the claims because the claims say an arm and a body right with other specific features but don't claim the claim that we were talking about didn't claim other components it's a comprising claim so it doesn't have to list all of the components the mandrel is still part of the tool but is never part of the body and that's consistent with how it is used to out the specification it's consistent with how it's used in medicine edison in claim one of edison it says an arm or cutter a body and amanda can use i still don't i'm doubtful about this case because i don't think either you address what the ramifications of the  when the anticipation in the obvious questions you just quibble over than the proper construction and leave aside for me to i guess yes from the examiners decision what difference it makes what difference does it make whether we construe body your way wear body the p t way so it makes a big difference in the eight one seven patent one of the inventive features is that the arms have an engagement directly to the body and it's described in the specification in the pen dicks forty two column ten around line thirty eight at the interconnection of the arms directly to the body creates a more robust tool gives it more strength more surface area contact there is no interconnection of channels and engagement between the arms and the body and addison in edison today this trait of anticipation correct does it get rid of the obviousness argument it does as well because there is no reference that the patent office the examiner ever found that has any connection between the arm and the body that creates this more rigid structure that is talked about in the patent so there is a mind it would be obvious to create such a structure base reference is so different and if we look did their work in that or in that examiner did not find so the examiner basically relies of the notion that the body is so broad that the arm i don't think so because on this record we've been through six office actions in the underlying proceeding the reexamination there is only one reference that the examiner put forward throughout to say this shows where the body connects to the arms and that was at assen the other references jukes inwardly have really nothing to do with the body those are for other issues on the pending claims so on this reference there is nothing i think the scope and content of the prior art is not in dispute and i don't think there's any dispute that what edison has is the arm attached to a cam sleeve cam sleeve is attached to a mandrel mandolin the cam sleeve slide within the body but are not the body so i don't think there's a dispute about that unless the claim construction stays as is my fave the only issue is claim construction once we get through the claim construction i don't think the scope and content of the prior art are in dispute i don't think the comparison of the claims to the prior art is in dispute and the only thing that would be left on obviousness would be secondary considerations which would be off are evidence but there's nothing in the record that would support an obviousness rejection if the body is not this generic placeholder that the examiner in the board said body and the movable arm the claims on their examination are not all of the claims in the patent so more than half of the original claims in the eight one seven patent were not subject to read exam and during reexamine twelve claims were allowed so including those added claims the eight one seven patent currently has sixty two valid claims most of which limit the tool body to require certain features of the thirty claims that are issued today are represented by claim twenty eight which cites no limitations on the body the term body is broad when you speak of a body no specific in image comes to mind and as as compared to a part like a piston or a spring or even screw threads even smith has conceded that body is broad enough to encompass any shape any configuration any function and further that it can be made of any number of part differently in the figures as we briefed the first discussion of the mandrel is at appendix forty one and there is some discussion there but the claims don't includ the board did acknowledge that in these in these passages on appendix forty one and and and forty three that there was this some discussion of a body numbered separately from a man six and a half columns of the of the specification it discusses body throughout and doesn't mention a mandrel until it gets to the bottom of columns i don't think th are only two elements in the claim at all and the arm has some limiting features there but the body is limited by any other claim terms and w yes we are we we are not disputing that there is a distinction between the body and the movable arm because the arm is a claimed element that in other parts of the path and everywhere in the specification when they talk about the body in connection with another part of the body it's always distinct from the other part in there claim in which in which that body is claimed with a stinger however that's claimed seventeen on appendix fourteen however that that claim  dependent on a different independent claim claim one which is in which the body is materially different and modified by other elements  question is was there any suggestion by the examiner is there anything in the record that would suggest that clay so it would be obvious would still be obvious if we don't adopt a more limited construction of body now the body the examiner relied on that construction of body throughout examination and so if we agree with your friend of this is destroyed worse than salary it would be a  i think i just want to respond to a few points one counsel said most of the claims have limitations on the body and that is incorrect most of the claims just say a body or a to b or the body which in essence is the same thing and i don't think your argument that having tubular body in claim one creates a whole different regiment of the claims where you can't look at the fact that there were two and claims that have mandrels i think to the extent we had said a green body and claim on it wouldn't add any more is really just an adjective the body is still the outer housing i pointed also said smith has conceded that the body can be any shape any configuration any function it still has to be the outer housing and i don't know that it can have any function but it could have different shapes it could be the two piece body edison show is a two piece body which for purposes of construction is was easier for the edison tool but it still has to be the bottom still has to be that specific component should you ask did the specification ever use the term body to incorporate other parts it never does and in fact if you look at and x forty one at column  separate component as you were pointing out i would point out one of the problems that i think the court has seen and it shows up in the appellate brief at page twenty two they say that tool claim twenty eight having a body that includes a mandrel that tool can comprise many other parts such as the spring the spring retainer the spring caps the driving that this is more and now we get into what do they fall into right so if we had a claim that said a body an arm and a mandrel where are the spring and spring caps and retainers of those now subsumed within the body are they subdued with in a manner right so we there was no requirement there is no requirement in claiming that we have a picture claim