what i think is common ground based on the briefing and that is that if we're unsuccessful in convincing you today that the board made one reasonable and iranians claim interpretations that at the claims and i'll turn to the to play the construction issues here turning to the merits of this appeal the board in this case adopted to claim constructions that effectively a visceral rated the invention in this case which is a  rather than the enclosure itself but the claim language requires a unitary enclosure member because the claims by their expressed terms require that the member in and of itself be that which defines the area which c child that can only be done by a unitary enclosure member the point is this a single piece of fabric that is only an incomplete part of an enclosure cannot contain a child but that is what the claims the specification the drawings particularly figure three and the essential one of the essential purposes of the invention require of the fabric an enclosure members that this court's decisions and n t p p p c proxy con at diabetes care and so many others make clear that the broadest reasonable to interpretation has to be consistent with the claims and consistent with the specifications what about claim to fifteen  to one another along edge portions and surrounding an enclosed space adapted for receiving a baby there it it's hard for me to see how claim fifteen doesn't make that just as clear as the other claims do that the enclosure member itself has to be able to in these claims which have been reexamined and reissued before this pursuit this proceeding is that the same concept is defined in the claims in slightly different language there are many ways to to point out that  insert that has sides that are between the corners and that can be easily inserted and replaced perhaps for laundering purposes goodness knows i have young children that was a big part of our younger days yes just naming them sorry did you a question i was i thought you had a question i'm sorry ron so i think i think claim fifteen makes the same point of course claim fifteen is supported by exactly the same specification that's that discloses a single preferred embodiment now as i said the specification itself is equally clear that the fabric member in and of itself is what defines the baby holding enclosure you can find that it a two eighty c one as well as both in the middle and below when the specific invention is being described the construction of the board off or however removed the enclosing requirement from these fabric enclosure and i think as long as the quilt that we're talking about judge moore is one that is that meets the other requirements of the claimant stand is the surrounding portion of the corridor and it would of course have to be unitary and meet at one side as well but yes i mean obviously a a fabric member it of course the the later claims in this that call for the side panels talk about side panels that are continuously connected to one another well that's to say but that's still defining what the member is and the member is that  right about the unitary requirement that's set forth in the claims and specification that vi out of disclosure is a unitary requirement well that's not right and i'll tell you why for one they try to read way too much into what a patent drawing is this the well judge more to be clear my friends say that the board did reach this at page one seventy one of the appendix and we've pointed out in our briefs that the board has offered nothing but  three conclusory sentences which simply don't establish that on the face of vi on a zero and i we also don't have to shrink from the substantial evidence standard if you had to go that far if you go to viola no and look at the drawing you will not see a unitary member or no i that's you know i don't want you to avoid reaching it quite the contrary i want you to reach it and i want you to conclude that there is not substantial evidence to support what my friends on the other side say was an alternative holding by the board at page one seventy one  supporting the proposition that it is said to says to support if i could turn unless the court has further questions about the unitary enclosure let me turn to the second construction error which is the upright tubes issue this is of course limited to claim fifteen of the claims that depend on it if i can distill this issue to its essence it is that the board decided that the upper tubes and claim fifteen did not have to be structural components of the crib and that allowed it to read on the flexible corner pieces that were in the bidwell reference in all of them and all of the claimed combinations required bidwell for the upright t claim fifteen and the board's decision with regard to upright tubes and claim fifteen was incorrect for four reasons first of all claim fifteen itself says that the upright tubes define corners of the baby crib that structural second to the specification decisions that say that the same term across multiple planes should ordinarily be read consistently and that's omega versus rate hike and the upright tubes of claim fifteen to define corners of the baby crib and whose outer walls define an out return for the bottle thank you thank good morning as was pointed out there are two independent reasons this court can affirm the p tabs a finding of invalidity on all claims first is to affirm the factual findings under the substantial evidence of netting in the use of natural as opposed to a description of net sections as they have explained in their opinion so they did look at figure one and they also looked at th section of the specification they also looked at in spain and referring to our petition ages twenty thirty two to forty they were citing to our expert evidence by mr campbell ever argued to me that reference to arguments made in someone's brief is the board's expense of the option for something said by an expert that's that's really a reach well good didn't just this is their decision is adopting argument in their citation giuliano the other evidence that is of record can be used by this court and that does include the campbell declaration so the evidence that was available was the campbell declaration  beyond relying on beyond relying on our arguments they would be on that in looking at violence of looking at the use of nets and netting and describing how it is the same all the way around as well as what it is that you see in figure one now the other side of the evidence here is that this argument that that has become the critical be read that sentence wonderland said it is not clear from anything in via know that the netting thirty two is even a continuous number that is the only thing that existed in the record prior to the hearing at the p tab that they were contesting anything about my own no no details at all no discussion of figure one no discussion of the specification that is  so as we pointed out we think that this issue has been waived by them or at best for them they have a mere skeletal argument that has no detail and the discussion by the p tab in the decision is more than commensurate with what it is that wonderland raised the record at the oral argument you have you have the opinions from the majority they addressed this question with wonderland council looking at figure one and we have to have in the record the transcripts of looking at figure one and saying yes you can see the wind touching you can see that this is a continuous number so under the substantial evidence standard you have these judges making the factual finding looking at figure one they have the campbell declaration whether you include that has a basis of their decision or not and they went beyond that and they looked at the specification of going on oh look at the discussion of the net of the netting that that is described as a singular member in found a factual finding here that it is a unitary continuous number and even under wonderlands claim construction that factual finding once affirmed under the same substantial evidence standard in this appeal because then there is no question that all of the claims are invalid under the combination of via no inpatient for now i will i will add they do have  side panels long that you that you wrapped all the way around so it would be four side panels and those four side panels are connected to each other at their edges you can see as you look at figure one and this is this is the factual finding this is this is not a finding that this that this panel in all due respect can really weigh under the stand substantial evidence standard the the majority looked at this and found that those lines even though they were irregular shapes coming in they were still crossing over each other showing that those that those side panels where they were to find they they address the address that during the oral argument because the first that was raised by wonderland what it is the only thing that the kids have panel had to address based on the record was one sentence from wonderland it is not clear from anything in via no that the netting thirty two is even a me i'm sorry that not only did they think that the argument doesn't make any sense to me that those lines line up nothing till they're a lot of places where they don't line up i can look at the figure this is not really complicated i mean there's lots of places where the lines don't line petition where we we were the only side that had we were the only side the had expert testimony on what a person of ordinary skill in the art how person of ordinary skill the art we view rayana wonderland had a lengthy robust expert report but did not have its expert opine on this issue of looking at viola no in making a determination of whether it's continuous they were completely silent on that so the only evidence that exists in addition to well i didn't you have to peter had judges who also found the same thing looking at it and there fought while it wasn't in the opinion is clearly stated in the transcript because the first time they were they were faced with this issue by statement that is what the tea tab did it adopted our arguments and it went further and it looked at the specs a vacation and it talked about the net and netting being used to singular as opposed to pro plural numbers and you know for example in the outdrive case that issued out of after the briefing in this case you have adoption of our arguments you have citation to specific evidence and you have a discussion of that evidence and those are factual findings and you have to teach have judges so you have reasonable minds who have just looked at this and made the factual determination on all of that that by i know has a unitary member quilts that's why i asked michael to sample a quilt where lots of little pieces are strung together and then it goes all the way around is it your view that their claim construction would be satisfied by four separate side panels that each attach and then in the combination that the question then and viola no is there is no disclosure of how it's been attached to the vertical posts and so that that is what really that's what a lot of the argument was about at the p tab and that is passed over here for the most part is that how do you attach that because if i own of silent and hasten provide that well known kater connection and a person of ordinary skill in the art would in there are a factual findings on this on why it is that in making that combination the person of skill in the art would maintain the continuous panel of a by onno so that you still have that exposed to look and they would use caterer connection of patients so that you maintain the continuous enclosure and there are findings by the p tab on that that were not addressed at all by wonderland in the briefing and once again those factual findings on why a person would have combined pace in onno in the way the peat have found those are all factual findings reviewed under the substantial evidence standard here that when you look at what happened during the prosecution we have a unique insight into looking at various claim limitations that wonderland included in claims during prosecution for example clean eight where they had the form in a single body limitation they had a plurality of side panels joined to one another limitation and they decided to take those out because they were not needed to define over the prior art so for this unitary issue wonderland in addition to what you see in claim fifteen but we can see an claim made during prosecution limitations that went right at the single unitary issue that we're in the cla judge in answer your question i think the motion to amend is very insightful into this claim construction issue because similar to what happened with claim eight in the prosecution leading up to the issuance of the patent where there were terms in the claims focused on unitary and taken out in the motion to amend you have the same thing happening where additional limitations are being put in for single and unitary so those claims do get to single and unitary but they don't do it just through inclosure member or fabric member they do it by the additional language that wonderland knew all along through the prosecution leading up to the issuance of the patent that it could add to have the single unitarian requirement ok effectively that the examiner allowed the claims after we brought in them which is suppressing strange to me in fact what happened was that we moved from a a where in clause which is sometimes not treated as a plain want to take action a limitation that made exactly clear the unitary limitation and that put that into the body of the claim in the maclean's allowed but again that's answered pages twenty two twenty four of our reply second to the camel declaration judge moore you had quite a conversation my friend this link the robust expert report may be lengthy i would question whether it's robust and it's not cited by the board that's exactly right but if it had been cited by the board the only thing that could have cited was page a seventy five ninety to ninety five paragraph eighty and what will you see in paragraph eighty exactly the same conclusory statement that was contained in their petition and that's contained in the board's decision that is not substantial evidence of can't support the board's finding here the single sentence that where we supposedly made that was not enough my friend i think forgets that it was his burden and his client's burden to prove the on patentability of our patent and to come forward with sufficient substantial evidence to take away our patent we're not required to prove a negative just more you were exactly right that was enough the dissent in the majority will recognize this issue as raised in joint so if the suggestion now is that we somehow waived that argument by not making  in sufficient detail for him that argument is not well taken it's unsurprising in this case that any of the things that were cited by the board about vi on zero do not support these propositions that they're cited wouldn't give our playing because passive only discloses a single side panels that are connected by separate rods so it wouldn't even be the quilt iraq what support has further questions for me i thank you for your time and if you've at the last minute