the key issue is whether or not a central part of me a channel void in the female and of an electronic sub distribution system for a power system requires a separate plastic housing surrounding that void in order to define it that is something other than the trunk we submitted that because it's a void it's simply empty space and it doesn't matter if it's surrounded by anything much less practical aspect of the connector housing itself that's correct i assume that claim one is unpatentable based upon the claim construction entered by the court the only reason to are were entered by the p tab the only reason to evaluate claim construction is all at all it's to determine whether or not  that's correct your honor and sussing whether or not the dependent claims are patentable are not the issue is not claim construction the issue is instead of whether or not the petition articulated a position or an adequate rationale for pointing to aspects of the face of the one hundred and eighty six patent rather than the provisional patent in alleging a challenge or making a challenge to those dependent claims can i ask you though just this is just invalidating with respect to the same claim terms in the related family i don't think there's a reasonable dispute left to say that the evidence cited in the dependent claim argument section is not invalidating  the key issue as you've been referring to was whether or not we appropriately excited to invalidating evidence in the course of the petition i would submit that the analysis performed by the p tab was unduly formulaic in that regard we have successfully argued that the nontraditional and provisional application references were properly incorporated meaning that they're simply one reference the rationale that combine shen which has these other limitations together with the provisional and i guess maybe you've also said something about mcleish and possible but you didn't i don't see power cord to the device that's shown by clicking walker exhibit well we did allege a separate motivation to combine for example the shutter and for the limitations related know you should know this ok there was a separately identified motivation to combine for the best alignment mechanism claim and also for claim five with is that your argument or i'm in my misunderstanding i have a suprising argument and one is that because they are incorporated by reference you don't have to show a separate motivation to combine because they're not separate embodiments and secondarily that we did articulate an adequate motivation to combine the various aspects of the references in only two of you know you told me a minute ago that there was a separate origin for separate evidence about a motivation to combine the two references are highly related from the same field of our interpretation the combined with the provisional no this is a motivation to combine argument to the features of playing what i think you're saying i have incorporation by reference argument in general motivation to combine the two references and then the few specific motivations also  don't believe so your honor i'm sorry i don't remember the hypothetical all that well but i believe that if if you're the court disagrees with the board there's issues to be remanded just to consider it but what the board did here was consider the arguments that were presented elements that make it very clear and they just they distinguish between chen and chen provisional and they don't ever say you take this part from chan in this park in general visual they make a separate argument as to to ground one with moving forward your honor we were just let's say it's one reference there are multiple body parts within that reference clearly and figure thirteen the connector that is the general visual connector that they rely on is even identified in the specification as an alternative  trying to make it's not a disputed in fact the problem here is that willis failed to articulate where chen provisional taught these other elements they relied only on chan with respect to claims to three and five through ten if it's one reference there are two distinct in body that's here there's the chen person body and there's the provisional embodiment and they argue then separately and distinguish between them in their petition very clearly very distinctly and they different because of the connector the figure thirteen connectors vastly different than the connector and in the chen document and as the board properly found there are only two places where willis articulated arguments based on t obvious to employ spring activated contact sections in the contact device and recognise how such connections function i e the springs activated contact presses against a central prong to maintain electoral contact between the central front in the context of a it's a generic insufficient moreover there's not any articulation of how you would make such a combination of the seven hundred and fifty one provisional with the figure thirteen figure thirteen provisional connector with mcleish because as i described earlier the figure thirteen connector is a uniquely structured connector and it has a one of its electro contact is a flat pad like connection point in the very bottom of the connector there's no explanation of how or why you put a string activated contact on that and in fact the board gets it wrong because there isn't any revenue evident from the record on this the board at page twenty three says that the spring activated contact would be added to void for fifty two we can't add a concept to avoid a void is empty space so the board got it wrong it did not assess that properly so on that basis we believe that the board should be reverse of the claims  he honors very briefly in the course of the piece had preceding that the patent owner in this case never opposed the substance of the dependent claims they didn't say that there was some lack of disclosure in the chen material that power cord or that the connector wouldn't be able to connect in multiple rotational alignments i also wanted to note in commentary of his argument that the provisional application itself was also incorporated by reference to each of the dependent claims as the beginning of each argument and to just briefly address the claim that these are separated body mints in a single reference these are between the provisional and the one hundred and eighty six patent face modular lighted artificial trees they have acquired seal connector in the trunk and they all have lights on them so all the case by the federal circuit doesn't demand exact identity this wien the various disclosures and reference in order for them to be considered the same in body mint and i think that's demonstrably the case here i also just wanted to point to the fact that pete have agreed with us on our position that spring contacts are well known in the art aside from the