and in addition you should remand because the majority committed legal or when they fail to consider evidence of non obviousness presented in apathy speculation and to allow an applicant to respond to the board's alternative analysis in the first instance at life examiner on the board's decision the rejection of the decision rests on the fundamental misunderstanding of the teachings of oregon and part oregon is a large large diameter lumen catheter that must have choreo absolutely not in fact park reference only discloses the use of a coil for this particular purpose in forming the end of the catheter into a pre formed shit if i can explain a little bit why they do that in surgery with a long catheter particularly one small diameter such as part discloses the physician gets to the point where he's not able to transmit what he's doing here down there and he can take the catheter out and form with his fingers the end of it into a pre formed shape which will help them possibly navigate the smaller diameter vessels as they get increasingly smaller and it is the reformed into that shape with the application of a small amount of heat the softening of the end of the catheter this the polymer at the end of the catheter was softened up and that reinforcing member would do what it wanted to do want to go back to  remembered shape and that when the position would not have to retract the catheter formed that in the end and start all over again the confuse the point is you still have corals in the prior art as well as  park and its figures quite clearly could also be used more generally in the way would be to do because i organised a primary reference and the examiners reduction in the board's decision was based on the would defeat the purpose of oregon's catheter for sufficient the stiffness for push ability through the vessel and sufficient rigidity for a high degree of torsional control and they would know that a coil bleed not provide that in both brains and coils resist kink to some degree now if you had said in your claim a higher degree of kink resistance indicated by such and such measurement perhaps you'd have an argument but there's no argument in your claim about a degree of kink resists well you can't argue that that distinguishes you both coils and braids is the patent office really within its rights well the first one to go back to when you mention the that it's only in the preamble i think that we have to look at the facts of this case which is the catalina marketing versus school savings preamble can be part of the same language in particular if the specification good luck let's admit that right up front but you still don't have any variable i don't think we are talking about kink resistance generally i think we're talking about the word kink resistance in that it will resist kicking in the area of the coil i think that we never then resistance in the area of a quarter of a tubing has to resist thinking to not close up the lumen i think abra technique has the benefit of producing and the invention in part is not the use of a coil or braid it is the use of a reinforcing member there's no particular part doesn't oregon and part didn't give you that combination because of the use of a i'd also like to address the fact that the fords did not consider that neither the examiner nor the board considered applicants declarations the examiner rejected the osborne declaration because it didn't compare the prior art invention with the with the invention and no further analysis of it and then she rejected the pony emergency declaration only because the shorty hardness level of the p b x was not shown and to the contrary big as the seventy which falls directly within the range in the oregon reference and so it was just was she ignored that and then considered that declaration against the board merely quoted from the osborne paragraph ethically quoted from the outgoing declaration stating that brain coils may be interchangeable for some interest instance as i won't go through the whole quote and never once addressed the column or the declaration that is a failure to and that is a misreading of her i can her i can i mean that that comes and the only thing that parker's partner sites for that teaching is a column one line eighteen to twenty one but that's just where her  a person of skill in the art would also know at the time of this invention that they would have at their disposal off the shelf type of reinforcement means and we know this from public park teachers  our self evident and they show that this invention is painfully obvious it's part shows you that you can have corals you can have brains you can have a woman for years and you can have simple things and all of these are alternative type of reinforce park actually uses the word alternative types of re what part do they play in the analysis of this claimed invention if possible that they're also involved in providing some level of reinforcement and it might be a combination of al sixty seven degrees the point is there are some baseline level of can present both in a coil and an upgrade and that is why the board did not find the decorations to be persuasive with regards to th commentary in the prior art it's really relevant only to the specific warming aspect that prior art not alternatives i see that thirty six or forty six is that the construction technique involves a combination of the two and the reinforcement we need and it is that construction techniques that has the benefit of producing exceptional  to history clearly states that a coil in a braid aren't equivalent and for ten years examiner has said they work and horgan itself shows they weren't also like to point out and none of the park reference that there's nothing this is distinguishable from the cases where the device would fail if you read part part at line ten through twenty part actually talks about using a brigade as helping with for control at the end of their device and say that even that doesn't provide a successful device and so they have to use this construction technique and that the difference between using a bread and a construction technique can mean the difference between a successful procedure and one that is not successful here parkas thing even a great isn't going may