military and that case will be submitted in the breach but not you first cases technologies holding versus abatement technologies for two thousand and thirteen claiming construction as a matter of law it did not adopt the correct structure and we respectfully assert that this court should do so to give the claims their proper public notice case which states that claims fail to give notice if their language is superfluous here in the claims that issue on reexamination particularly independent claims twelve us in parallel with hash two different meanings within the claim that's correct your honor did you make that argument below yes in fact i can point the board to three instances below that technologies that are there are clear construction is not in any way way first the o'brien declaration which was submitted to the examiner in paragraph twenty seven in meaning for parallel in that twenty seven other meaning for parallel is not in as not in twenties not in her and i in your honor i do not believe that there's any dispute that the other meaning of the brief certain pages two and three are all in parallel float configuration so we recognize that that the sub segments which which are part of the segments must be by definition in parallel flow configuration with the force subs but then we continue to sta fourteen seventy five since the claim construction issue seems to be dispositive of the appeal if we look at page a thirteen it's page twelve of the board's opinion in parallel with had to mean from your perspective both jim metric as well as same sequential at the same time and that they weren't exclusive of one another or as the interpretation you're arguing to us is that there are exclusive each other that in parallel with means one thing with regard to one limitation and it means a different thing with regard to the other i think it's been slightly more than one trying to get at is how how did the board misunderstand what you feel we see what you clearly presented to them because there is a language in your brief where you say means both right right so so there is language in there where we say that under relationship would would work however when you look at the context of the claims and you realize that the second occurrence of in parallel would be redundant and superfluous and led to the fact that the subsegment that are being discussed with respect to the second occurrence are so tuned within the segments that are being discussed in the first occurrence then we we understand that the second occurrence must be compelled to meet jim medically parallel otherwise that claim language would fail to provide the noticed in that in that respect zero point two  term is used within the claims in the specification and in this case i think that's precisely what's occurring in the back you yes in parallel with all parties realize that in parallel with in a vacuum can be very broad but when you look at it with respect to the relationships with the other terms in the claim if they both mean either or it's built to provide notice to the public as to what  is being claimed here and that that we feel is something that needs to be clarified we don't want to have plans that are indefinite we certainly want the subject in an either or you want us to  context the one meaning of a parallel with would be added to mean this and this and that's consistent with what the claim language but when you look at the way that in parallel with is used in context with the other words of the claims the first instance shows this parallel flow relationship in the second instance claims the geometrically parent i understand how that would operate the i think that the question is whether you actually argued indeed boards in our position before the board where you can really really see the swing which is when you look at the flame language directed to segments vs the claim language directed to subsegment consistently we assert that the so that the segments are in this parallel flow relationship and then we consistently argue that the subsegments are in a geometrically parallel relationship with one another and there are a number of places in our brief on appeal to the u s p t o where we make this distinction pages fourteen sixty eight  fourteen sixty nine fourteen seventy one fourteen seventy six fourteen seventy nine and fourteen eighty two of all the single thing this construction from the prior art that is asserted against us  reasonable construction requires this differentiation to remove any super and analysts saying in parallel with depends upon the context absolutely to be shared with you the problem i have they were saying in both of the limitations where in parallel with shows up it has timing but from your perspective it had to mean both both geometrically and also at the same along the same time same path right correct  didn't understand you were saying oh no can't mange two things it doesn't mean and he changed and changed to different things one or the other depending on the context so the sharpness with which you have refined your argument here on appeal strikes me is it might have been difficult for the board to appreciate that sharp distinction from the language that was used and well again i think the th that i mentioned earlier where we indicate that it would be completely redundant other lisa purpose and meaning less and less the second instance is construed to mean genetically parallel counsel you want to save a first was already discussed a little bit and that's the claim construction of the broadest reasonable interpretation the second two errors was that the first being that whether under the proper construction of either the parallel flow relationship or a geometric parallel relationship there was sufficient evidence below for a reasonable fact finder to come to the conclusion that the board did which is that claims twelve twenty five and twenty six are obvious the third error the t h c brief was whether the board aired and how it got there whether it relied on declaration of mr brown improperly or it failed to consider the evidence put forth in mr o'brien's declaration it's our position that none of those errors occurred the board was correct in its broadest reasonable interpretation under that standard the board chose either parallel flow relationship in both recitations with the client well there is no dispute you heard counsel for t h c say that there is no dispute that in the first instance it would mean a parallel flow relationship the second instance with them claim twelve and twenty five is where the dispute before this court arises is our position as some of the questions indicated that there was a waiver below it was never articulated below that there was a context specific read within in both instances parallel flow and geometrically parallel there are issues with that construction just as there are issues with the newly proposed construction before this court will begin with the newly proposed construction it is not so perfectly nice to read the second reading of unparalleled with as meaning parallel flow if you look at figure eight which is that eight page eighty six of the record and its corresponding specification description an air passes from outside the chamber into the first heat exchange path as it goes across the air heat exchanger it then enters the second segment the second segment goes out the bottom of the air to air heat exchanger and proceeds to take a three hundred sixty degree track around from the evaporator coil up through the heat exchanger again for the second heat exchange path and then back down towards the condenser that second segment has to in the claims in the specification as the fourth subsegment if you look at the description in column three you'll see that the importance of the bypass was to get in the air from outside the chamber to the condenser without going through two different elements the first being the air there to the changer and the second being the evaporator coil the only way to describe that in the claims to get the claim to bypass which they led was the novelty of the invention to have a separate airflow which is identified as sixty two not crossed either the air to air heat exchanger or the evaporator coil before it merges with the condensed air after segment thirty six thirty six the way that the claim the way that the column three describes it is that the fourth subsegment merges with the second segment upstream from the condenser so there's that that sixty two and thirty six the way the claim reads the in parallel with the second iteration the one we're talking about says of the fourth submits the fourth segment sorry is in parallel flow is in parallel with the first and together and in parallel but if you look at twenty six that's i mean i guess we can argue that that so thirty six would be dual metric leaf parallel but how would thirty six twenty six metrically well how can that be either so let me let me let me take a step back to thirty six be the fourth subsegment we do not believe requires a reading that is geometrically parallel that is th these positions so we would agree that thirty six b is not demonstrated as being geometrically parallel may have a portion that could be considered geometrically parallel and th he argues in their reply brief before this court in the construction but that would be exactly what t h c is doing which is in violation of this court's holding and revision in that instance t h c would be saying this one segment of thirty six b is what we're claiming that requires very expressive disclaimer or waiver the fourth so forth segment sixty two the first part of your question judge ran a field with element number thirty six element number thirty six is defined and was let's go back look at sixty sixty two figure in column three the as the second segment column three goes on to what the second segment is the second segment is not just the portion where the line thirty six is drawn to thirty six is described as the second segment which does the following it exits the evaporator coil eighteen goes and so if you're looking at the figure eight on eighty six the evaporator coil is the is the rectangle with the oval that when the air subsegments and claiming the subsegments is so that you can ensure that the bypass below sixty two doesn't cross either the air to air heat exchanger or the evaporator coil because by saying that in parallel flow relationship with thirty six b you ensure that the merger of the ambient air with the condition there occurs after the second key to exchange path before the condenser fourteen where the part with the arrow leaves the geometric relationship with the fourth or bypassed segment but that would be a very specific read if you were to read the claim limitation the way that they're describing that the second iteration where it says the fourth subs the fourth segment isn't parallel to the parallel with the first and fourth subsegments if you were to insert the word geometrically in there and say that the fourth segment is geometrically parallel with the first and fourth  subsegments that would require that what you see as thirty six b which includes both the perpendicular angle and geometrically parallel portions to cover only the one that would be geometrically parallel that's not shown in the figure to do that are moving pipes there construe how does the air make make the curve as there are around the chamber has in practice when you build up the chamber as channels to direct the air through those pieces of plastic channel thirty six separate from the channel sixty two until the merging point i honestly don't know how they would intend to accomplish what they've shown in the figure described in the claim when it becomes at this point where thirty six being merges with where the air passes through thirty another problem into how the construction would work where you would read the word geometrically into the claim they're asking for substantially geometrically parallel to the score they're saying it's geometrically parallel and if that if it's geometrically parallel they can't claims the way the specification describes it and specifically a claim twenty five is described that the fourth segment will merge with the air upstream from the condenser so somewhere between the condenser fourteen and where the air leaves the heat exchanger there's supposed to be a merger of these two air flows if they're supposed to be geometrically parallel that doesn't seem to be practical and it's certainly not described in the specification how you accomplished accomplish that they also in their reply br figure number eleven figure number eleven is the only one in which you could it is the only figure in the specification in which it is described where the airflow would not emerge above the condenser s the evidence supporting the board's construct the evidence supporting the board's construction we've discussed the obviousness finding supporting the construction where both reeds are parallel flow is where the error would be there is no error in this case because the board was proper in its construction either or and then focusing on the parallel flow read for both parts of the claimed term is the part that is applied and the art is very abundantly clear demonstrating that there was it was known to have this type of dehumidifier and it was known to add a bypass and the reasons for it all of this is described in the in the board's order and specifically emphasized that pages eighty nine eighty nine and  fourteen of the board's decision we respectfully would submit to this court that the construction was correct and that under that construction there was ample evidence for the board to a reasonable mind to conclude that these claims are obvious and light of the prior art thank you thank you  adopted the first second and third seconds so first is thirty four second is thirty six and the third segments as well as the first second and third fourth subsegments the third segment the third the third segment is thirty six i believe not that's i'm sorry that's the second