the proposition is that if a limitation added by amendment is already found in the prior art to be overcome then one knowledgeable in the or would know that the reason why the entire amendment overcame prior of its rationale is all we can generally related to the equivalent of the out of limitation that is contained in the prior art because the reason for adding a limitation was not motivated in that instance and in that limitation was not motivated by any patentability concern with respect to argument basis stop you have the same thing so why do you argue the moment is the multiple pieces to the amendment that sedition there was taking multiple measurements at different times there was converter and then there was comparing those measurements against each other the one that issue here that the doctrine of of equivalence would apply to is only the converting limitation because there's no dispute that the accused divides a lot but why was your argument be proportional to an analytic you have to convert electro biosensors exist because we know there's a known correlation between electric currents generated an analog so converting is a necessary underlying element to any electric electrical chemical biosensor involved this event ski of prior art reference that was cited in connection with the amendments prior to the amendments and the white reference they both specifically disclosed convert in fact white itself talks about converting electrical currents and then something those together and comparing them with an expected so the whole idea of converting art so you can't overcome it it's it's obvious that you can't overcome a prior art reference by citing something in that reference you have to cite something new different or unique and converting was and i guess i still don't understand why with the limitation added to the limitation was added because in order to compare what you have is you you have a dispute with a limited of the reaction here and over time you're you can't simply compare them because a measurement of current measured one time at time may in the current measure that time be you're not going to know whether or not those are important thing that had to be in the claim even with your explanation that you hear here that yes it's important because if you want to be able to compare measurements throughout the entire reaction period you have to confirm what the acute accused of place does it's interesting is at the end of that reaction the there is no real difference between war between the current being measured and the glucose exactly what i'm showing you is a reference to the white and the graphic in the white where white specifically takes multiple measurements multiple glucose concentration measurements and comparative against an expected so by us adding a converting limitation to our path to st adding that limitation as an amendment it could not have only way you can do that throughout the entire reaction period is to convert if you want to do it if you just want to compare the current because if you compare currents at an earlier period of time those currents are going to be different but you're not going to know if that difference is the result of the reaction or is the result that you're give getting a different and a light measurement so you're absolutely right yes you know from so you know you had to compared limitation manage your plan you're almost correct address the distinction is the prior art in particular why it took multiple measurements at different times but used those measurements and compared them against an expected control car so they were comparing the measurements with each other they were comparing them with an expected and they do that both with currents in white and they do that with glucose measurements and look at glucose measurements over different times and they compare them against the expected and what we're saying here is no we're different we compare with each other but in order to compare with each other in this this goes to judge those will not just compare with each other we compare real time what lifescan is saying is we compare currents not glucose concentration ok the reality is those or the equivalent with each other it chill you get to the end you can not compare currents with each other during the early portion of the reaction because you're not going to know if your differences do that tom or due to differences in analytics you're absolutely right yeah  concentration and measurements to each other why isn't this hearing that you experience the distinguished walling based on this very limitation that you're seeing in getting ads for purposes of distinguishing her because walling takes multiple measurements and then gets a single measurement it never compares measurements at different tops walling converts walling out salut lee has to convert those current measurements to get an amulet reading what the what the patient wants to know is what is their glucose level they don't want to know what can burn it will generate is three hundred and ninety eight dollars what you said was the operation of walling does not convert to different control current readings so what am i missing you have to read the whole sentence because if you read the whole sentence can compare them with each other and the only way you could compare them with each other is to convert and if you if you look at the pattern and suit claim for the way that claim is written it is you get to you take a current reading of time one you take a current reading it time to you then convert and you compare so the equivalent we're talking about here is converting separate current measurements to separate concentration measurements and then comparing them separate concentration measures by scan says life scan system does not do any of that  positions taken here today about there being a distinction somehow because i'm not even sure if i can explain it properly and might like there being a distinction in how these statements about walling for and then comparison concentration compares those to concentration measurements right from the current measurement that's what the invention is the distinguished part that doesn't do both of those things and that distinction is equally applicable applicants twelve times told the public that their present invention is a system that compares that converts current to concentration and then can compares the actual conservation measurements to that  excuse me it times in two pages if you look at page three hundred and seventy eight and three hundred and seventy nine they do that four times in two pages and those statements are telling the public in the clearest possible terms that this invention is and is a system that converts current separate current measurements to separate concentration measurements and then compares the separate concentration measurements there telling the public what the that the invention did not exclude much use device here you have a statement that the limitations you have by amendment aren't just distinctions they are actually defin present invention and that's a very very different in what it does your honor it makes this a stronger case for prosecution history stoppel than any other case of discords ever considered i'm not aware of any case where  around and say a certain claims against you ship structure and that's exactly what they're trying to do here to get the would say who have been clear that their invention is a system that can converts current concentration one compares concentration actually invented a system like compares that converts to separate currents to two separate concentrations and then compares the concentrations and and to distinguish references that don't do that references like white and like life skin system that compare current rather than concentration and for the same reasons again as in parts of the same statements create an argument based to stop  doesn't white takes multiple products at different times in comparison with an expected white also takes multiple measurements of const takes multiple crime measurements converts them to glucose measurements and comparison to an accepted it doesn't matter what the public thinks when they read this it matters what a person of ordinary skill in the arctic and everyone in the art knows you must convert the converting element when you look at our at the chart a necessary element to be able to compare measurements over time so it had to be in there it had to be added but it did not need to be added for the reasons why the tangential exception doesn't apply it was not added to overcome the prior art because it could not overcome the prior art because that limitation was specifically in the prior to three theater when you say everyone in  artisan would you know and i'm asking is there a reference or for that yes and what i would i would refer to is if you look at appendix three hundred and thirty nine in response to the amendment examiner repeatedly says every skilled artist knows you have to convert and i would look at the prior art because the present single one of the prior art references converts because you in order to get an animal like measurement out of  device measures current at specific time points during the cultural current of k and then those current values are used to calculate the analy concentration i eat convert the minsky convert it so there is no possible