all and then something else and then my song and and the concern is to keep one the the material in one way or two from seam would be around so certainly the discussion of the prosecution history is towards launch to north of the primary purpose of that seals to seal the annulus around the tubing within the or hold all the first the idea that that can only be launched today is is incorrect so dr how packers plus expert has admitted the flow between formations can be across a bore hole especially now that there erroneous construction that only launched toodle channels would be considered seams when that falls away the primary findings under the proper construction the primary findings have no basis there alternative finding lot on for that finding in particular the description of the figure one of the body meant never says that formation twenty can have only one band it's nowhere in that description of figure one instead the board had to look to a single sentence in c two of thompson about line fifty one dollars that says the formation can have one or more band now it isolation it's it's tempting to read those two things together but when you read thompson in context it actually discloses a specific embodiment figure two that has a single swell band thirty six dollars and that band in fact has groups that a procedure would recognize to be saints let me disclaimer are well your honor because it call into line proximate beginning about line thirty depending on the dimensions the wellbore the covering the annular space could be sealed by swelling of the covering without physical expansion of that could be could be explicitly discloses which thompson does not do it explicitly says you can create a seal without expansion now fundamentally the record bears out that there is a limited number of options of ways to create this seal the prior art that was distinguished during prosecution expanded the pipe and then the elastomer swelled to fill the gap because the expansion by itself wasn't enough and the alternative disclosed in the final five is creating that s by swelling alone and then that seal once done can either be done without any expansion at all or expansion can occur after the seal has been formed now that's a limited number of options and the board essentially neglected that rd option in its decision it said that is possible but we don't like it because of claims three and four and they said that they didn't like it because they concluded that claims three and four would not convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that that rd possibility was in fact a possibility the problem with that finding is nobody testified that dr house didn't address claims three and four he didn't say that a bazooka wouldn't have understood from those that that rd possibility was  of me but i can find it on my rebuttal and bring it back to you it was addressed by the expert and below that that patent in fact discloses expandable drill and did not present expandable drill pipe as being its new invention so expandable drill pipe was known a expert agree with that in his deposition nobody has argued that there was a redefinition of the term nobody has argued that there was a disclaimer of the term and nobody has argued that the plain meaning of the term is somehow inconsistent with  this it doesn't really appear anywhere except in the claim so what it does describe your honor is a single annular covering without seams and so while it doesn't necessarily go into a lot of detail that statement combined with a drawing that shows a single annular covering without any groups was was understood we will save the remainder of the time for you thank you is to the whole point of the five hundred and five package is to prevent channeling of fluid from one zone to the other that's brought out of the background of the patent and then at the end of the detailed description it says the president mentioned offers the advantages of easy deployment prevention of channeling due to the bonded mounting of covering judge len you're right the word seamless does not appear anywhere in the specification other than in claim one the words seem does appear and that's at the bottom of c where it says preferably when bond it is a single annular shape with no seems that can allow channeling so in the specification and in the file history seems is tied to channeling there is no description whatsoever in the devoted to keeping leaping from one area into another and his response was horizontal drilling among other things and on he maybe except even more is on drilling all contexts that you want to prevent channeling from one's own to the next zone where you have the liner in between so with moving moving had to thompson figure one of thompson the grooves as bigger  it that may allow fluid to flow circumferential around the stand but calms thompson is pretty clear that it forms a tight seal so you can't get the fluid past that packer or that that device construction of seem to be it is a term of art as is as used in in the five or five and has no description of well look at the surface of the covering and you'll know whether it's seamless or not it's described functionally with respect to whether channeling difference i would agree with your honor if it's a line or a groove which is the same that when it's pressed against the bore hole as long as you're preventing the channeling it seamless so i would i would agree it's irrelevant in that in that state  with respect to the disclaimer argument the obvious action response which baker use points to is providing disclaimer of whether expansion is covered in claim one or not they amended claim one to say sealing occurs based on the swelling or some sealing the well bore from said swelling and baker hughes is arguing well the prior art disclosed expansion and so therefore that amendment to claim one disclaim any use of expansion or at least expansion prior to the ceiling if you look at the office action response your honour's every time they talk about what the prior art did they also talk about that the prior didn't have seamless coverage moreover they don't tie the claim amendment to expansion they don't say the amendment to claim one precludes expansion or to limit the claim to sole the swelling without expansion happening before that at minimum there are multiple at least two interpretations of what they disavowed if anything and under the case law which i think is is pretty clear if there are multiple interpretations of whether an amendment or an argument was sufficient for a disclaimer not it's not it's not sufficient so i would unless there's any question in the disclaimer on move on to th discloses that under under baker hughes this construction where seamless has is indicated by a line or a groove or some indication th sealing the well bore from swelling limitation they don't dispute that thomson invalidates under the board construction under baker hughes this construction which is sealing occurs solely based on swelling without expansion thompson does disclose swelling without expansion specifically as counsel mention the thompson reference talks about drill pipe not only does our experts say drill pipe may not be expandable thompson in the same paragraph where it says the conduit can be drilled pipe in the next sentence says and it may be expanded so that that the drill pipe may not be expandable moreover claim eight hundred and eleven dollars of thompson if you look at claim eleven it's specifically talking about sealing based on swelling it doesn't talk about expansion and then an independent claim it talks about the there is the argument you just heard about claims that an eleven was never raised below it appeared st in the final written decision so it is an improper basis for the board's finding that thompson discloses the ceiling without expansion of its stand thompson that says that that statement in the summary applies specifically to the embodiment of figure one and with the in context of the fact that there is an embodiment with a single soul band the only reasonable reading is that it would be referred to referring to the multiple embodiments more generally importantly that single swallow band in figure two includes groups or channels that the board with its construction implicitly recognizes can be a seem the really remarkable thing about packer for his opinion about the meaning of seem not just the same word but definition number three of that definition has dr house part and then it continues on to include the nd part that mr cox included and dr how committed what he explains there is that the the profile the outer surface results in inconsistent swelling they contract fluids and create weak points now cement was a previous version for sealing that annulus around the expanded to make but cemen didn't do it and the reason is that when there is heavy mud or things that are flowing past it as it's trying to fill in that gap it creates channels that's the same thing mr cox explains here that even the cement was intended to seal their weaknesses and even though thompson intended it's grooves to seal their weaknesses and that was the reason that the five hundred and five patent albeit not as much detail as would have been helpful but said no seems depicted no seams whatsoever no channeling if we get past the erroneous constructions the alternative findings are legally erroneous undernet money and are not supported by substantial evidence for that reason we asked the court to reverse thank