claim amendments issue here today were made by a netlist after the issue five three seven the claims during the examination rejected were rejected based upon  the manner in which the m p would explain it you would need to have an example of it being where chips less was used with brass and caps and an example where you had as is what is in the pattern the separate chip select bra they would have had to give a reason to exclude rather than just distinguish to some tourist require a reason it does that's the stand your standard wires a reason to something that allows you to distinguish and what we have here is a specification that in for instance what the board relied on a table to has it used as what it  instruments intrinsic exclusionary indicator and they are pointing to an x which of course everyone thinks x exclusion but it's actually not just a don't care state and then as well figure nine a which again was for any kind of memory but they're all consistently saying the same thing that here is an environment which has cast rats just selected and then get dressed what if what if we were to target that logic table necessarily that that there could be example there's an example that the suspect is contemplating where all of those other signals are has turned off and so therefore what we have in the table is an example which is just exclusively using ok and not the other the bank that are signaling counts in the right i agree that that would be an example that is ok and so there's an argument i think that the board is making that this is demonstrating that the inventor showing us that there is a reason to exclude those other signals in favor of just working exclusively with chips less than you would say that's not a good  enough disclosure in the patent because while there's a number of reasons to begin with in the prior art that's the reason that the original specification the original claims were rejected which just that chips lacks i would agree with you that it dos ok so then and so what i'm saying is that because because just to use an analogy maybe you can teach golf as it's for but that doesn't exclude you teaching all sports reading on that doesn't mean you can talk football i mean zip a the point here is that the construed chip select as an address signal that enables the input and output of data to and or from a memory device their opposition page sixteen a twelve forty four for the record and so they've already by that instruction shown in chips life can be very aware that can be many things but it is going down both johnson and and p s l to provide for the proposition certain things why don't they have the right to do that as long as the specifications supported i would agree with you as long as the specification supports it but what the m v p contemplates is that you give alternatives and so that you say there's one way of doing it  or if you say that actually it doesn't matter if you list something in a specification as alternatives you actually have to have expressed a preference for one or the other if we did i believe that is an overstating your honor that is not my understanding of the law i believe you need to have some reason to exclude there but i do not believe that it needs to be expressed in just so i understand your case if we conclude that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the board's fact finding that differentiate shifts like signals from rats and cat then  necessarily it depends if you also believe that as a matter of law the order also probably found a reason to exclude so i think that's part of your case is there maybe are competing conception of do an interpretation of the phrase reason to exclude what is the legal principle that you think we should see that not being for what this reason to exclude mean for negative limitation with respect to written description i think that there needs to be something in what was originally filed in the specification it is a time of the original plan that shows some support for the exclusion is it is being contemplated whether it's  examples that the m v p suggests of course it would be fabulous if it would be expressed but i'm not suggesting that it goes that far i would leave that the patent office of inspector practitioners do need to have the ability to a particular strategy for for football and said that you know our coaching strategy for instance and then said you could also use it for soccer or hockey or basketball are you saying that you can't turn around and exclude everything except for pot because they there that you at least talked about the other sports here we have a science here we have one way of one way of doing it that had ras apps chip select is one dying that the chip is not selected when that ship selected zero as in the second row then the other signals the values of those other signals determine what the command will be to the memory device limitation just as in any written description support case and we can to express the distinctions of table two and figure nine and provide support for the negative limitation if your honor for that for a reason to exclude if that's how you return to the well let's go to how we read santorum because you know it's always dangerous obviously to read a majority opinion and might have a sense because the dissent can characterize the majority opinion anyway it wants to and it's not necessarily what the majority said but here we do have a dissent that that very specifically expressly characterizes the majority opinion and the majority opinion at least d after so why shouldn't we believe that the dissenting view of the majority opinion has an accurate well i think if you're referring to judge newman statement then there's a new rule that the specification must describe a reason for the claim limitation i think counsel has conceded that you don't need an express reason in the specification the specification under the federal circuit law is and and that's exactly what professor speech and also said in his declaration of paragraphs thirty seven and thirty eight on then you don't have anything in your spec that specifically cars real ships like signals from the umbrella term do you follow what i'm asking and what is your from merely supports the same example that they have that doesn't give a reason to exclude as required by center there is a heightened standard of scrutiny to a negative limitation the ten terrorists requires ok and what tell me what a reason to exclude would look like a reason to exclude it in this instance would look like an example that says there are other implementations because remember that the claims originally were direct like is here's an example with rast in castings uses a chip select and also then having translations so that you could contrast the manner in which the d d r two chip select operates from the manner in which negative limitation and i'm just wondering why that centaurus didn't speak in those terms you just talked about the need to be a reason to exclude agree and why can't that's just the the  historical notion of are there blaise marks that in the spec that communicated that the inventor contemplated a certain outcome because if you were after the fact as we are here ten years later putting in a limitation to the claims as it clearly you're not you don't know that the inventor was in possession of that at the time then zat is the problem it gets back to whether the inventor actually had possession of this idea back at the time to wrote specification i've only got a couple of the less than one minute left but the one thing that i did want to talk about was he said that it was a belt and suspenders as to why they put the negative limitation in our position is they can't have it both ways they can't argue that one of ordinary schoolyard would know that d d r meant all these things but then at the same time have added the negative limitation with no consequence ok thank you