appellants never had an opportunity to respond the examiner rejected the claim as obvious over two patents one pulse and you know and a second to no there's no a piece of paper where is the claim requires an article which the kin to  didn't combine or relied on the combination of those two references and it and it was clear where the shortcoming was in the primary its original volume and holds a great deal more liquid that's what he you know that's with the prior art world and what applicants did was they recognize were discovered by accident or through that novak's intermediate did not contain a fluff hall first there was no new ground rejection between the board and the c m or as the board specifically that was original decision at page fo but the intermediate which appellant calls a slur and this was the same and the board reiterated again in its ground rehearing that they were both relying on novak for teaching its love to wood pulp from th six you will see they distract descrive coal caustic extraction and creation of this slurry just as novak describes but then very tellingly martin goes on to say starting line fifty five columns six the float would halt may then be recovered from the treatment slurry and dried either sheet form or free form so it's not true that those of ordinary skill  maintain that you have to drive this slurry in a paper form or something and then read fluff it again their second run through a hammer mill marketed who they are hoping to revolve interference interpretation that what you had that intermediate contained fluff would paul and broke the board and the examiner noted that no they have explicitly teaches they are one of ordinary skill in the would that you could stop at that intermediate point because they both found in the record a page for seventy four and this would be page two of the patent in the right hand column it's an older pattern so we don't have each individual column numbered but if you look at the paragraph going from big around line twenty one to line twenty six that this larry can be court and here standing before the court appellant is arguing that oh you have to be a dr product and this is either a shift in argument or something that's being of prior art that is in the record that they are hoping to provoke that interference with that status specifically refers to this slurry the same kind of slurry appellant makes the same kind of slurry that no that makes a level of clarity that they're doing now in their great reason before this court it before the board an examiner they were primarily arguing that you could never take the  in the examiner said we're not talking about the final product we're talking about the intermediate specifically every three to page a four thirty eight a four thirty eight of the record the examiner noted that it was the pulp of novak not the final paper product that would be luko second one of ordinary skill in the art would know not to make the final paper product from the pulp if the fluff material was called for and they said this in response to  and unfortunately the we're sort of in a position now where he having to respond to an argument that slightly different than what was before the  which i know is the same thing as essentially writing something through a well because if you look at the specification it talks about you can run something through a hammer no look at for any other is they take this intermediate slurry that has been run through here in maryland is like way to get to get the final product the paper product that it goes into sort of a vat you drain out as much of the liquid as possible and then arguing a new rejection i was a developer have the right to come back and say well ok now you're relying on a different reference for the fluffy aspect of this and i have a right to be able to say i would if if that was the case that you were to agree with appellant on that point in contrast to martin's teaching i would say at that is the flow of will we believe or it gets converted into paper correct that that is cloth in that supported that interpretation is supported by martin but within the board to be the board's conclusion i would i would i would say that that is contradicted by the board's later statements regarding no that's intermediate  fluffing means dr stretton it's also been suggested that a hammer mill and a mixer are somehow the same they're not a mixture is used to take water and be of uniform thickness throughout the mix the pulp and the sort what are together in a blender dump it onto a paper machine and press it out to get paper which is of uniform consistency however real is something quite different