holdings versus folks like an incorrect legal standard in relying on the woodland in santa cases rather in those cases are part of clear and convincing evidence standard now here mere team only had to overcome a promise facial showing th a contemporaneous drawing from back in the day and that mr de vaughn given to his patent attorney but there's also nothing that suggests he created this this drawing well really what he's saying is another way of showing this is what fourth relied on these cases for certain that there must be documentary corroboration and there's something else campbell in the same way it's saying with worse here here's what i can see there's really i don't see how that's i think we're you know we're in a quagmire over here on this side of the bench we're trying to draw a straight line through all cases been quite skeptical of inventors their assertions without more as being something that's reliable and now now we have to look at the scenario we have in front of a sphere and try to understand the best we can the meaning of the message through the bomb cats and both of those talk about how it's an evidentiary based exercise they just do it and neither of the facts in those cases can fairly be characterized as just being a bare assertion by an inventor declaring without any details or any story that he was the one the true inventor of the passages that he likes to have the inventor basically saying me and my co inventor invented all of these passages not the other two co inventors listed on that patent and full people apply in any event even if it did the briefing on the other side presents a story of why outcomes here by the board is consistent with the m p because what is going on here is not something claim issue that they're discussing an instance where there is a first patent that has one claimed invention and then if that same claimed invention is things like the second patent that that's an interference type of  position i'm sorry and i've got another question my understanding of the m p e people visions were that the agency was trying to make a good faith attempt at interpretating to b and do we give deference to the agency's interpretation of our own president i believe unless it's contrary to preston they do but but this disclosed but not you think the agency we should give deference to the agency's reading of our own president no no no you shouldn't get preference so i guess what i'm saying is if we were to conclude that there is an interpretation of our own president by the p t o through the m v p that is an incorrect reading of our own president then that doesn't have any persuasive value at all of clearly federal circuit but why but i do think it's it shows how other people have interpreted prophecy c p s cases i think it's helpful to see and and and the several patent office cases that have accepted fair declarations i think  is where we really see the discussion of both cats in particular and what is sufficient to establish the sole inventor status following the word opinion is there any place in the opinion itself that discussion is the drawing that was attached i'm going to help you out there isn't the dr doesn't actually appear and nor is there discussion about it instead following where they discuss evidence it was a lack of a clear assertion in the affidavit itself which is viewed seven so nowhere in the opinion of the court do they reference the drawing have i missed anything to your knowledge yes what if the states on the basis of the records here which includes appellant on a with a cold declaration that he conceived anything blah blah blah i doesn't mention the drug trade it just says on the basis of the record here which includes this declaration i a footnote number five l l do not consider it necessary to include a drawing number seventy three three fifteen and as the word explained the reason that it was included it wasn't necessary to reproduce that drawing in this opinion not that they're not considering it it would that was addressed in the board's decision in our case they explained  that the drawing was not included in this opinion not that it wasn't included in the record so you don't when you say we do not consider it necessary to include drawing number seven three dash three fifteen help me out because i don't know the facts as well as you clearly did are you saying that that is a quotation probably for the note that is a quote from the court here the c c p explaining that they didn't necessary to solely reproduce it in the opinion but it was no less absolutely necessary to the outcome of the opinion probably even though after the sentence says we do not consider it necessary to be wrong they never mention mentioned again then after they say we don't need to include it in the drawing that is showing it comes from the package say that it is the same and then have a footnote that says that if they don't include it in the context of a p t o based proceeding where there is actually a presumption of inventor ship that attaches based on assertions and declarations that are final that when an affidavit is included that articulate portions of things that were invented by one person or another that's not enough even though in this case it was clearly enough and this case never mentions the draw and the more it doesn't mention the drawing  sure i understand the rule of law that you're asking us to adopt if it is a publication with multiple offer authors it gets liberation alone with a good story in it because the author is sufficient on its face can be sufficient on and that's what i'm trying to figure out that i have no problem with corroboration as a necessary component and can see the value in it so i understand why you're bringing those cases to our attention it's just that those contexts are a little different from this one and i don't downplay everything arrangements where someone's trying to swear away from a reference by claiming that he was the sole inventor of the relevant passages that prior reference because of what happened in chads and the barn at a minimum were decorations that profile that had at least some story attached to it yes and it wasn't more than that it was more than just a conclusion the assertion of being an inventor  mccovey below assessed the evidence and found that it was insufficient that's an evidentiary finding and if you like to ask you we don't have much time left to please turn to whether or not there was noticing comments that claim three sixteen twenty two on whether or not it was proper for the board to rely on the styles reference for the rejection ultimately of those three d teaching these limitations regarding carbon dioxide and water no we did not but the war did it and also i point out the question if it is due process they did have a due process of american and its response said expressly address and there they said that the final written decision was not limited to what was pointed to in the institution decision and that is a twenty five at third and this was not the dressed in their brief style says that the generation that saito says that the most preferred regeneration of gas is hydrogen which can be diluted by nitrogen styluses says provision in styles that says further includes carbon dioxide and water vapor what is in our petition in the body of our petition yes but to be there again we didn't rely on that key sentence from  sentence from stock yes not the one that says that the regeneration gas can further include carbon dioxide and water vapor and in fact we laid it out and then said further includes that sentence was included  regard to claim seventeen and then of course the patent office is response to all of this when it discusses claims seventeen of these two thirty one and he's going to they go through explain why styles doesn't in fact disclose what they think is you said one sixty eight and i'm not i'm sorry where you i'm sorry one sixty eight i read the wrong thing in my notes kuroda say to one styles likely overcome any differences between campbell and the subject matter of claim final written decision does not have to is not limited to the specific portions of the reference that is cited or quoted in the institution which way over your time  not tied but it is there and it will so i american was put on notice that these disclosures were in play i guess the question for us is if you block quote passages from  friends that was relied on for a claim or should we believe that the law quoted passages or claimed one should also be a live issue with respect to all these deepening claims where other portions of the record were relied on for purposes of the institution let's just say that's the way we read the institution decision i agree that they are black quotes but they're specific  this is i guess maybe it's a hypothetical that i'm asking right if it's a passage from a reference is provided for grounds of unpin ability for claiming one but it's not ever dependent claim twenty then is the order allowed to use those passages from claim that are relied upon for claim one that just happened to be also useful also instituted with regard to claims three is very sick britain element of carbon dioxide i'm if i'm getting i'm wrong correct me i know the facts are not crystal clear in my has but i think it's carbon  because the entire analysis is one of the header of flame one so even though in the petition it's fully articulated it's relevant explain why we should nonetheless assume because it happens to also breed on deep limitations that it's nonetheless relevant there instituted on do we want to say a generalized statement with some general discussion at the outset or at the end is that enough when there are clean charts present the full item by item like this is that a burden we want to introduce you to that as you recognize rebuttal evidence to the board said no right so that it that's ok that was i don't think genzyme answers that suppose i don't think that you tell me from a policy standpoint what makes good policy here so obviously of references in a limited number of pages doesn't that sort of almost trump everything else in terms of focusing everybody on which references of elephant to which claim the board didn't think it trumped everything else here because well so i can picked out  teaches it so i think you have to look at everything in the petition and you know genzyme i know you maybe you don't think genzyme this particular point but genzyme talks about when something is in play and i think by quoting those those  they were nobody and i knew you wanted to and were prepared to and i'd actually like to hear you if you don't mind staying a little longer i'd like to hear your thoughts about the first issue that we discussed which is the issue of corroboration right so it's  pair today great advice rule what's the what's the rule what the rule is it something more and you can see that from the board the board didn't necessarily say you have to have a document or you have to have a story you can see the board give any story any explanation i didn't attach any documents and i think in woodland trust the court says it's a rare case when there wouldn't be any documents so the owner of the other campbell five five a it's hard to believe when they didn't have one do you are ok when it's a publication that you were delineating as between but definitely not for patents is that a line that you would think is right to draw not necessarily i think cats is definitely the story was enough for publication we do think based on the m p e p that when something is claimed there has to be a higher standard and that's why the m p e piece says when you are lying and claim subject matter you have to talk about what those other inventors did so we we do agree satisfy his burden of production there's some lesser requirement and then when it's just love and claims then there's something more acquired than the situation where it's close but not clear because you know if you look at the records patent the inventor signed an oath saying that they contributed at least some subject matter to at least some of the claims and the idea is if someone is going to come in years later and try and rebut that and say well i'm the one who claimed claiming one that they need to make more of a showing because there's already oaths on file saying that these four people in this case played something so they have precedent i think the m p e just relies on i don't think it relies on the specific case to say that i mean i think they discussed a bounce but i don't think that's exactly what happened and i just can i just point out one sentence originally conceived the basic equalizer honey come section disclosed in the six seven eight patent and drawing seven three three point five so i would say that they were in their opinion relying on my drawing and the  know but starting with the kamal declaration the campbell of the moment issue we've discussed this life but i think cancer cancer important you know there's discussion of the story but because there are so they wanted this this this they wanted this declaration to explain any ambiguity that you know i think that the patent of the c p a was a comfortable with what does it mean to be an separate hurdles you have to deal with like the bar the bar the inventor was trying to swear away from passages of a patent cats was trying to sway our way relevant passages in the article and so sought our opinion or c c b a's opinion talk about how when it comes to an article we shouldn't be so quick to presume that co authors are really inventors of all that is contained in an article in an article just a different situation and whom you designate in the label and identify as an author is not the same exercise that one goes through in identifying and labeling someone as a  so i guess what i'm wondering is maybe there is something to it what the agency is getting out perhaps in the cats like situation the agency  mean explain what women think about that i mean i think it's actually off so if kant's was trying to swear behind another patent i believe they didn't need the sexual explanation i presumption and so he's explaining he's just he's just telling us what's in line with that prior explanation i'm an inventor i'll tell you what i'm in it and there's no contradiction to that i think that should surely be enough drawing there is not corroboration it was put in have to show evidence i believe production to practice but but there was a statement i believe in the in the prior discussion that th divine explained that this is that he built this wrong because i never say that he doesn't say he developed the strong he just is putting it in and says well but what you think it has to be enough to raise material question of fact what's the difference between now and the p t o saying this declaration by an interested party with no corroboration as a matter of fact simply doesn't convince us it's almost like you want everything it's also that has to be an everything or nothing conclusion can't quit the meatier do that with the beauty it was based on this record and nothing else that you know what this declaration while it is evidence and we consider it to be evidence he just doesn't convince us it's  presumption they had overcome but just just to put a finer point on the question from the court it's that you were saying that this declaration should be considered something that's enough to create a tri issue or a factor or something crass and really in the end we're at the end game when the final when the board issues its final written decision and it's got to reach a result right there make a final choice and it could say a couple of different things under this scenario one as this evidence did not shift the burden because it's not really evidence of anything or to the extent that it's evidence it's it's of such low quality i enough to shift the burden back the alternative is to say we take into account your evidence of this declaration and then we go back and look at the prima facia case that this is good prior art and in the end when we look at all the circumstances here time is past everything else we make a finding on this record that it's good prior art against these guys so it kind of takes away the so called burden of production shifting framework and just reaches a final conclusion based on everything that everybody's presented in the case on whether or not this reference should be considered a one or two we reference well your honor the the