you in fact i can skip to the nd three of your mortgage didn't that that's the one i'm a little more concerned about ok from your perspective so i thought i'd like to hear what you have to say given that as i understand it the proposed ground of unpacking ability would just use all of anderson use embley connectors and then use all of that and instead of connecting it to a wellhead connecting it to a subsea tree is that the theory and so therefore there would be didn't direct connections between the connections and in anderson's assembly because that's what is in fact shown and it's a little different than that but let me let's go through and i think it'll come you but i would state at the outset just do she up this issue a little bit what you're getting to is the amount of a limitation in this connection and in fact in terms of the bigger picture neither kelly nor anderson teach apple e nd theory for example if the board adopted the lead nd theory then the words findings regarding the other limitations of claim one would have to be consistent there with and they're not for example for teaching the st lamentation  one referring to kelly the choke assembly twenty six dollars that's kelly so simply is capable of being mountain is therefore multiple to a subsidy tree and a downstream production flow on the account body twenty two dollars which is also kelly guess i'm trying to understand why wouldn't we just why wouldn't the theory just be you use all of anderson's assembly eighty three and then it's connectors one hundred and eighty and eighty four and that connector eighty four just goes straight into the subsea tree that's discos and kelly that is the issues not on the left hand side of the tree are the issues on the right hand side so when i heard what i just described why is it that the structure well you're talking about at kelly's college structure point two but i'm and my question is more forget about kelly's structured point to just look at andersen and that  contained unit to the right of its well head and now take all of that and use them connector eighty four of anderson just connect that to kelly's subsea tree but the invention is directed to claim claims that the modules mounted to the tree and the production follow on together this is a lot of plug and play model that lands on the tree and the production flow on and when you remove it is to detach from is not detached from one in a time in fact we wouldn't want to do what anderson is teaching it's actually cumbersome because the phone line is attached separately to the end of the module in the invention the the have adopted that position and didn't adopt that position because it wasn't available under magna multiples on this corner magnum all tool stated that the board cannot adopt a position that the party did not advance in the petition theory what happened to line twenty four and call it body passes six thousand and sixty six as it is this what was a modification of that is no longer there aboard an address that because  that theory was not available to the court to the to the board under the petition would also point out that the adoption of the nd theory would be inconsistent with another finding of the board on another limitation of claim one that is the proper direction flow on connector limitation there the board two there is no other embodiment where the can you identify where in that direction that theory which will call ground number two can get us anderson where the combination requires retaining kelly's body twenty two and those lines twenty and twenty four in the combination where your musings andersen's is and we need three in combination with was based on kelly alone so they incorporated by reference what the finding i just read which is skewed and you know as is evident from figure one referring to kill slane say that and i'm heartened to hear that because i think the entire amount to build the argument that he was trying to make that wasn't in the briefs is based on that direct connection so if we have agreement on that and they're with us then i think that argument is taken care of  the andersen for scully theory that was asked about i think what may be most useful for the court unless or tells me otherwise is to simply go to the board's final written decision and see what they did because i think that l module to incorporate inner sense teachings of separate and independent connectors for the module that is the common thing that's in both flavors of anderson plus kelly invalidity it's the connectors so with words saying here and it is making a fact finding of course it's looking at it from the perspective one of ordinary skill is that it's the connectors that really matter whether swapping the whole module or just the connectors and then the board takes that in the subsequent page and says in other words kelly i heard this refrain say something about well who joe to what extent does the argument you just made implicate the direct connection argument you're showing that's exactly what the show's writers so the direct connection argument it's a little bit tricky in that it was never made below and so we're doing this little bit on the fly if we were still debating the direct connection issue the argument would have been that the little pipe section twenty four swap it in and when you look at what the swap is so we're going back to work to should you see that in fact that line twenty four disappears so enters its connector goes directly the production line understood question so you believe the board believes that lines two thousand and twenty four and call it body twenty two are not part of the combination when you combine anderson and kelly and when you use anderson the same when you do three that's correct and substitution of kelly but i guess the pattern is pointing to something in the petition that suggests otherwise and it i wasn't entirely sure what he was pointing to if we go back to the petition and i'm happy to do this repor and if we're like well what you see is that of course it's a combination of charley plus anderson and so when that fisher is talking about the that the preamble the mount ability all that you know you look at the combination and kelly in fact was addressed fairly impish in that preamble section was address wearily and what's interesting is that once i've seen never took any issue with it so when they filed their patent response there's nothing in there that says oh no wasn't entirely sure for mr planes argument whether the charlie anticipation ground are still in play or not so i'll just step through it briefly there are three elements that one subsea says are missing from that and  read it could allow for some intervening parts and that's what i was saying that there is no longer a a dispute i want to make clear that because i didn't leave my arguments a few points to the comments number one during the reply to make it pretty clear that they were pointing to minus twenty and twenty four as being part of kelly's treat and then you asked if i was served by which was granted and you addressed other arguments but you didn't address this argument in your flown went through all discovery production flow one at the reply at the last minute they say no it's not that it's not the production floor line is the tree and then turn that back around i want to say now you can argue the arguments you would have term production below the line in the reply i think you're disavowing a position that you've taken for the last year and a half through the entire proceeding and your experts never disavowed it then then it's not waiver i mean i can't it seems to me that we