pending case for x party case before the patent trial appeal board and i don't see the law saying that there should be some outright prohibition against doing such altho it is true that you're able to amend the claims an explained in the office at the non fan office action response of march twelve thousand and twelve was that if you look it seems that the water there is actually stuck embedded in the house and such a could not rotate which again is another limitation of the claims that they be rotated the couple so it was there that it seemed clear what your versing meant but at that from falling from that office actual response the examiner chose not to accept it they chose a broader definition look at it they said they look and at that point it ended i was the inquiry the had always been the argument that well listen the argument that your honor just like just mention about traversing and figure fourteen see clearly show that what was being referred to here but as i understand from the  the public can rely on these applications or call look anything you say in fact on how to how case would issue unless the examiner p t o is going to rely on what the representation is are about the language or the prior art to allow you to get the  sedation so i did the sync sure you can apply here seems very superficial in that i don't think it really helps in the grand scheme of things since the public is going to be analyzing the case for whatever amendments or statements are made by the applicants as the case goes to issuance and is ultimately granted so in that vein i think the on the traversing limitation prosecution history certainly is relevant should have been considered and in fact is determinative because you know the prior stayed over and again with the word between meant as between the surfaces it's understood that the p tapes position is that the you can pick any surface on the structure anywhere and say well that lies between those two then you need to clean limitation but it goes back insight have language that may be indefinite or that they may be going too far afield from what is disclosed but when the patent office is basically seeing that the applicant is telling you what the terms mean what they mean specifically that the claim has created a new invention it never in the specification of the applicant and in the view the next item that presents itself here and i th earlier today we heard about black boxes which spector damages this is a black box pattern the box marked generator and with some you know why one line or two in the specification of this issue patent it says that  at all then you can look at well is it clear enough is in the is and it is a not ambiguous prior art reference that shows each and every limitation of the the claims but the before you can get to that to figure out whether it's pyaar all figure out whether or not is it in constructive use of practice whatever was stated there was not enough and the certainly there was the other surrounding circumstances the hoosier reference and also disclosure of rest of as itself that just shows you that there was very little detail provided to allow anyone to what's disputed here and that language is largely untethered from the specification in both the examiner and the board dealt with in different ways but they were obviously troubled by it and the examiner wrote indefinite rejections and said we don't really know what these terms surfaces traversed and so forth mean in the context of the specification and what's claimed the board on the other hand said well ok we can understand more or less what these terms mean based on their ordinary meaning in dictionaries and so forth but again that's at sixteen of the record the board responded and said basically that the rotating portion in the lobby is staveley connected to the doesn't support structure and cites to support to paragraph twenty the evil eye and if we look the parapet up twenty which is at five sixty of the record what we learn from eli is that the rotating portion the stabler connected and gives examples of how and i submit that one of those is actually what you've observed is one of the figures but the three examples it gives is radio installation of the of the rotating portion within the vessel support structure and it also suggests that the rotating portion can be coupled to the frame such that and in particular as to best describes it's the limitations of the generator that are claimed in claim sixteen and those are even claimed and as to this if you look to claims clench for sixteen twenty four and thirty five of us to post they actually recites the exact limitations with respect to the generator and the arrangement of the loop wire within the generator that he has that  is talks about generators and they describe one generator and they also describe and discuss that many many generators were well known in the prior art and finally the only  pieces of evidence one is that color one line sixty two three to sixty four where best of as discusses the generator being a couple between an inner portion and an outer portion suggesting that's between some sort of inner and outer surface column three then talks about the cup a couple or twenty eight that houses the generator and that is depicted on figure of one and as you can see from figure one alternatively you could even look at the left wall as being an extremely or surface and there are other walls to come in from the right hand side of the figure and and and the surfaces on the ends of those that up but are on the interior side of the generator expected the generator to be between or within the wall between inside the wall if you actually look to figure what i think of the room festive occasion where we see the cavity is this labeled as c and the wire is within that and that is and on fourteen c we see some of those who were showing the rotating portion extending outside of the castle support structure continuous ring other times it's just a bunch of they call them blades at these blades or in the flu because they will interact with the fluid and thereby rotate or and get it fourteen b seems to be right you know the numeral nine hundred fourteen is showing one that's extend these blades the problem with that is that the claims call for a wire and that the wire is so terribly coupled in the cavity it doesn't say that the wires coupled the rotor or via some other means so the wire that's going through at least one of the surfaces in the using and it's being lodged in the cavity the reference to figure one of the application in that in that environment does show a cavity it's true for the cavity there is is again located in the housing the housing is generally denoted seven going all the figures so i think  holds the that's that's implanted in the device so it's again the question is this between allow you pick any surfaces that one wishes and say well hey that there is there is a cavity the problem of course is that the where the internal surface and the external exterior surface are actually defined in terms of their proximity to the fluid so so include and then further with respect to s of as the record so show other evidence beyond just