incorporated versus smith and nephew incorporated but if you read very well but then i would claim language actually talks about includes polysaccharides having this silver incorporated in it does your honor but it doesn't and why would why would we be restricts the choice within that you don't think we can read the claim to and then the rest of the structure of the specification together to try to understand what's the best understanding of what the inventor contemplated when i talked about using  but any choice you make from that has to comply with the incorporation which the specification tells you in floating and it also has the photo of the table so there are other limitations that guide whatever choices you would make  expecting us to read the claim that the inventor drafting and ignore the term polysaccharide so that we can understand the word incorporated in the claim to mean something much more collar and minimal changes there after it's important to read that minimal change in light of how does this photo has ever been described earlier which is that it is a solution to discoloration  says controlled color change to a desired color but to me just that opening phrase suggest you start with a color and now change in some controlled way to a color b where color change to a desired color to be photo staple what would that desire cover be doesn't matter any color as long as this color ok but go to point to point of th because that focal point first of all to the board construed substantially protest able to mean this is a forty that the material member go or controlled color change to a desired color with some minimal discoloration even undesirable color from this is from the desired color and even some degree beyond a minimal discoloration and still be considered substantially part of the table and then goes on to say even a purple were shown to be an undesirable color appropriately or whether it's been followed appropriately here there's a three part test to show around one is are they minister in the system are they filling a gap and have they done so reasonably  was reasonable was judged from the perspective of an a t g at the time a decision this court would have no problem saying no no that's wrong it's the perspective of one ordinary still in the art at the time of firing similar to this case the court case law makes it undergoing on exchange between the palmer and silver that's also true of the respective polyurethane and that's another point that's not contested by convatec but in addition to the claims themselves being able to slack from that class of polymers the suffocation states very clearly that the same list of polymers for suitable for the invention so they've got to square that that idea that they describe in the specification true examples of polymers that are incapable undergoing on exchange as being suitable to the invention and the idea that the specification equates the term loading and incorporation is just completely unsupported if you look at what that suffocation does it specifically defines one term loading to require an exchange but the other terminal corporation is in discos alright but then the pan is also talks about loaning just above the definition for moaning and talked about it in the same way that the pan earlier talk about color are wait and wait to see gray and the purpose is definitely not an acceptable color so that's that's an interesting change of tact on their part factually a couple other things on the definition of solving of discoloration problems they specifically defined photos say to allow for discoloration but that's not our problem the fact that they point to the term photos data extremely broadly in a way that is very much seeking to solve this discoloration however the coin the phrase full stable extremely broadly and that something that is of a public notice function to the terms of the public at large and is entitled to rely on that definition purple and then if upon further exposure to light after your in the package for example it went to a further dark purple or a different color red or blue or black that would be further more than minim discoloration and then that would not be until the state was doing me see if i get this straight it could be white first yes it gets exposed to right somehow and then maybe go to some light purple yes but then there after it moves to deep purple correct that would not be a photo statement that would not be for the same product but if it went the right purple and stayed upright purple that would be ok that's right and again that's just to get into debt so if you look at the givens example givens is working with  the package and it stays purple or just has minimal color change that's a photo stable material if on the other hand givens expose it to light intentionally it goes to purple if you package it open up the package and it turns black or turns said the givens recognize that it is discolor but if you look at the givens reference and this is in an example twenty four or so that example twenty for example twenty five they both report color change from white to purplish in an example twenty four found that there are a number of reasons that the motion to amend is deficient that significantly the board found that the amendments failed to overcome the givens reference and that's  very clear in the record that they failed to overcome the givens reference the three members that were made for adding that the palm of your gel forming fiber it replaced incorporated with load which would require out of bonding and then it is needed bonding and loading was because it claimed example twenty five m was in the reversal or said you can get in to expose the polymer first of the solid agent and then to filter the board squarely disagree with com attack on that factual issue is applying a substantial identical process to the exact same aqua sol commercial product that's described in the nine one a patent that you'll necessarily inherently get a photo stable material and again that's not something tech challenges further not attempting to be challenging whether there should even be a burden placed on it in terms of being able to have it and then motion granted suggesting that the proxy con opinion didn't address some kind of statutory question under section three sixteen my understanding is that the proxy constitution resolve that issue and that it was entirely proper for the patent office to evidence to have the motivation to combine the creedal and be here references they did that in connection with some of the dependent for original claims and that motivational finding is at a twenty steps and for the reason that we who's moving for the motion that the burden falls on the movement however to the extent there's concern about section three sixteen that section is talking about and issued patent and claims is an issue basically prove that you can have these claims in a patent so it's the this is the statute that statute that would be a possible to be amended proposed amended claims to be three one sixteen a nine where you're basically saying that the director can prescribe regulations setting forth the standards and procedures so three sixty isn't really a political two proposed amendment claims they're not they're not actual claims part of directors which is given and given for the part of the i p r from the very beginning beyond that any other explanation that the court made about the motion to manage an alternative reason why it was deficient the court doesn't have to reach those ensuring the claims changes clearly and set forth the support and the original disclosure of the patent for each claim that is added or amended so we have it's required that you show it in the recent disclosure disclosure whether or not the original answer that and i will i just want to make it clear that that is not the father here but to answer you so under our regulations we require that pet owners prove that an ability of the prior record as well as are known to the patent owner there's a duty of disclosure in our regulations of just thirty seven c f r forty two point eleven and all we're asking is that in addition to the prior record you also let us know what is new to you and we use idols three and master image three d to basically explain what we mean by that it's always been a regulation not changing the regulations just helping the public sort of understand what it is we're looking for and if you look at master image it of breaks down what they mean by part of record and it talks about any prior art and material prosecution history is well in the i p f proceedings right no good the more interesting part of the prior art that is not on the record so basically it's laying out what part of record means making it clear and then saying keep in mind your duty of candor always remains thirty seven c f r forty two point eleven has always been there you're always required to the extent you find something to