determination that these claims correspondent of the count yes your honor all all of the claims that were in the interference which were claims three three seventy four of the claims have dropped out because they want to feel they are corresponding to the count well one in order to get priority wouldn't you have to show that you had written the scriptural support for the count in other words it seems to me that the peak of the board here was looking to see whether that was written description support for these claims rather than written description support for the pap that may be that she have to have both but don't have to have written descriptions support for the cow and yes your honor but that's a different that's a different issue written description support for the camp is used to determine who is who is the senior party and in this case gandhi was given priority back to two thousand and two so they were the designated the senior party for purposes of the c support under one twelve first paragraph written description for a claim is based on that based on the current specification so low although the board did say that all of backman or excuse me gandhi's claims three through seventeen interference are the argument that we presented before the board and is on appeal as well is that certain of those claims that the claims that are issue now those claims don't have written description support  missing all of the ones currently on appeal your honor there's claims five seven eight ten eleven sixteen and seventeen on on on what i'll discuss is the minimizing step and then claims twelve through count the count is not of relevance at this point those claims are part of the interference and neither party is challenge that on appeal what's the issue is a simple well then if it then it seems to me if you look at the specification for two reasons first of all your honor under the agilent under the agilent decision from this court when a claim is deemed to have been copied from a host specification in this case the backman six o  we would also disagree we would disagree for i'm for a couple of for a couple of reasons  the transitioning your honor in claims to all three seventeen is described number one as being between the two other staffs and second it in the claim limitation it says that the step has to be completed completing is the word that's used and we would argue that even with the plain language of the claims that transitioning and completing have to indicate that they are separate and distinct from the two step process of just providing a lean exhaust gas gandhi specification a declaration submit it during the prosecution history of the gandhi specification of the gandhi prosecution and from an expert in the interference dr there are two problems first of all we believe that the board completely misconstrue the claims so that that the sum of this is the sort of the alleged substantial evidence was applied to the wrong claim construction i believe in proper construction respect to three and four yes your honor we believe that a proper construction of the backman claims what was the one construction error with respect to three and four i understand the you argue that there's a point construction error with respect to one and two which may be correct but with  recall this or miller reference discloses in engineering and then it discloses what they call to exhaust system components elements thirty two and thirty four and element thirty two based on a reading in the specification it's not clear it's not clear what it strapper ellen and we've we've argued your honor that because both elements thirty two and thirty four are merely call exhaust system components that there's actually no way of telling what component thirty two i we actually think that we think the guy got it backwards they said because a three way catalyst is an exhaust system component is is one and among the categories of exhaust system components element thirty two must be a three way catalyst and therefore the gas that is supplied to element thirty four is predictable or noble however when you look at the specification your honor we believe that the generic description of exhaust system component is not enough to tell you what that element is and in fact if you took gandhi's argument in this regard to its two minutes to its end both elements thirty two and thirty four you would not be able to definitively say what they are so we don't believe ill actually discloses what is what is provided in terms of the chemical composition of the exhaust gas to element thirty four which has been argued is only knox tracked and we would point out that when a disagree with you on that and we decided to affirm the board with respect to claims three and four and the obviousness terminations at the same time we were to agree with you that th in all respects narron clean one i would say it is generally narrower claim one talks about the lean not strap being predominately filled with the exhaust gas during during the third phase but what claim three says  what claim three says is that there is a predetermined period so in other words that the person who sets up the controls for the engine sets a period so that period could change the amount of gas from the  gas during the third step it could be forty five percent filled or fifty five percent feel the claim doesn't claim doesn't have limitations in that regard if someone says move all the time yes you fig thank your honor if it's cork i think the starting point here is the claim construction and you really have to go back to claim three of gandhi which is also claim one apartment the board focused on the pla language of the klein i think anyone who reads the boards opinion realizes that where the word how it's a big problem with beckons claim construction was it simply is inconsistent with the plain and unambiguous language of the client i'm really confused as most interference cases but it seems to me that there are two separate written description issues in the interference for c one is a written description issue as to whether the  and they have different language than the pal and based on the language of the claim this there does seem to be a pretty good argument that there is written description support for the language of the so what are we supposed to do are there t separate written description issues in these interference proceedings one about the written description for the count and one for the claims or what what's going on and i think i understand a judge like the clients three m four or beckman disclaims one through four really has is not before the court because all of those claims have been held invalid now the claim construction is relevant to the invalid of the holding but the written description issue is really for claims twelve through seven piece oppose we say ok you've got to have written description support for the those limitations would not be supported by the gandhi specification that's right with those limitations run again the board said that and we haven't disagreed with that but the point does it was improper to try to read those limitations on what back ss clearly doing is trying to read embodiments into the clay and i wanted to focus the quarter on a couple of points in the specification to illustrate that that's the point if you look at the say that your position in the board's position with respect to claim construction of claim three of gandhi is as copied is that the transition that necessarily occurs between will satisfy all the requirements that that bettman is saying are necessary to satisfy step three i don't between one and two i don't think that's what we have said you is not only here it's not in the claim it's erica but don't you really just saying that what we've got here is necessarily a transition between one and two that is and in the course of that transition everything in the and it seems to me very hard not to read back and claim want to having a separate third step and the other question is whether playing one incorporates this proposition and period of time separate and distinct or at stat then aborts claim construction was wrong and we have to send it back to have them consider whether back then claims one and two were obvious right i think that's that's right but let me i that occurs when you make that switch and there's going to be an intermediate exhaust gas during that transition what beckman are saying no you have actually a justice so you have this flap level in there but i think what's very one over to column two and again it's repeated the following for the invention of says according to the invention the method is and they used precisely the same language from the claim there they chose to  seventy well god he claims twelve through seventeen have different language on the board pointed out they're all claimed twelve requires just that there is a transition from lean to rich and that you complete that any word you would construe that it that way if as i understand it we should reject your argument with respect to claims one and two of that because you positions the written description positions beckman position depends on reading into the claim a requirement that in claim one the so called third supplying stuff is separate and distinct and controlled in terms of composition and direction no i don't think that's true i think there are two separate issues here one is whether it will are as a separate stinks that and the other one is whether it control opposition and aeration not no i don't i'm sorry you are right that i respectfully submit that i think what beckons position is that control means you're controlling it in terms of composition and duration and that's that's what figure chucho is they're arguing both but i think that two separate arguments and i think that they have the board they too claim constructions here wrong with respect to claim one that it's not a separate distinct step and two that it doesn't have to control duration and opposition the second one is it seems to me a much more powerful or human given that the difference between a claim on a back  well no claim claim claim one of beckman simply says a third supplying stuff where you have an intermediate exhaust gas and that the l and t is predominantly built before you terminate that intermediate step that's what claim once us what claim three says is that you put some additional detail on the step three occurs over a prepared pre determined period of time there's a constant exhaust gas the engine mixture to an intermediate step and you control its duration and its composition and that's where the board had a problem the board said you could have crap t that has less oxidizing agents than in the first up and less reducing agents than in the second step the board said the climb doesn't tell you how to accomplish that and you can accomplish that simply by transitioning from lean to rich you don't have to make a separate and distinct adjustment in the air fuel mixture ratio going into the engine beckman is arguing you do have to make that the board so that's just not that the steps are separate and distinct is he means that you have to control the engine you have to do to you have a mixture going into the engine that how's that it's a lean mixture and then what beckman senses you now have to adjust that mixture not that not to rich conditions but to a point that was intermediate between lean and rich and you have to simply not a mechanic so your position as i understand it is that you know what all you have to do is switch from lean to rich and necessarily on its way from lean to rich you'll have a transitioning step that will the be the question the necessarily part of your question gets to written description it gets to whether that necessarily occurs in the gandhi method which was an issue for written description of playing three it's not an issue for written description of playing twelve but the first part of your point is exactly right what the board said is the claim does not tell us how we get how we have to get to that intermediate mixture it doesn't say we have to make an adjustment it says we can get to that intermediate mixture simply by transitioning from lean to rich and during that transition you are necessarily as you say going to have a the entire purpose of fact means invention that one specification repeatedly talks about the knox breakthrough problem in particular i direct your honour's to column two winds fifteen to thirty three and more particularly wines twenty seven twenty eight this mixing which gandhi's counsel referred to as what naturally occurs if you immediately switch from lean to rich the specification says this mixing briefly results in relatively powerful reactions and the spec was on to say those are what cause knocks breakthrough so what do you mean but well i'm sorry i hit a ship point and so so so the representation from gandhi that back means claims are somehow limited to the single  switching from lean to rich it's inherent in the other prior art references are of record also when not what is it that constitutes separate and distinct what is that necessary to happen to make the steps separate and distinct is it enough for example that you have a transition between it lean to rich which occurs over some period of time that's let's say slower but that mixing your honor is exactly what gandhi acknowledges causes knocks breakthrough and they are classes maybe so but why isn't that their way isn't fair to characterize that transitional period as a separate step or as at least a couple ways to answer it your honor one the claim says but tween between implies that something is before and something is after also when you look to the warin clause and i'll just refer to claim one when you look to the where in clause it also includes the word between to say that it comes after the lean seven before the rich step and it also puts further limitations on what has to happen in that step there is nothing in the gandhi specification that says what the exhaust