wires on top it doesn't really show it give you an angle where you can show what happens to the door and so that the fact that this is not circular sort of over over eight career is is just the shape of the thing it's not a perspective dr get back to claim structures something of my focus what the claim says has to be encapsulated is not the wires but is rather the  contact pad areas plus the eating so why doesn't it make sense to read it the way the board did and not to terms of the claim why would the claim not say encapsulating every pair of first and second conducting wires and the surface mounted light emitting component the limitations in the or the specifications to create limitations of the claim but i think in this case it's really nothing else in the in the claim language or the specification that gives it caps waiting any other m the term it does not appear more than i think it's only twice once in the claim and once in a split second i don't think that i'm that i can agree with your interpretation of the capsulated but i think they're trying to hit on something important when he said what is being encapsulated so i think the disagreement might be there and i try to understand that and i think again looking at the drawing it's not which really the only thing we have to go on is to what is being  a capsule that makes the particular things the contact had the area and the alley and completely covered but not necessarily all covered by the transparent there was a prosecution history change right and in reaction to a prior art reference marcus if i remember right i don't recall either in the prosecution history or in your submission to the border maybe even here a development of and explanation for what that change of language was supposed to signify a change from inclosing to encapsulating something either that alone or maybe slightly more change i don't remember i think the change was only from closing to encapsulate it and the board offers no way or the examiner offered no explanation as to why i do that but i think it's reasonable to conclude that that was done to align the claim language with what the actual specification disclose as the specification used the wording capsulated i don't recall not really it appears once but not in in terms of the way the device mean that it has to be wholly enclosed by the same subset let me give an example that comes to mind i mean you would say a corral and closes an area populated by horses even though there's nothing on the top of the corral but you would say that the barn in capsulated farm hand would use that word but you could use that area populated by claim talk about a wooden floor and capsulated i think that would be different that would be similar to this claim because we have to read the claim in its entirety it's not just in capsulated itself the transparent package is in castle e and i that rejected in the first officer action and they filed their reply and cooperate in that transparent actress and to claim won in order to add a limitation to overcome the prior art that was cited and they nature of what was discussed it really doesn't give much detail at all there's there's no way of getting into the exam which has reading this as to what he was thinking now it could very well have been that the examiner just liked and i mean might one take from that since this is a wire in which the rest of the claim is saying they're actually going to be exposed portions that in closing is actually or less covering  it took away from it a suggestion that the two sides already covered by something else like the side of the alley gave it was covered by the contact pad or the contact pad  the edge of the opening for the contact that areas but doesn't necessarily have to go beneath the insulating layer of the wire that's not part of the description they're reading this into it based solely on required really depends solely on the context so that a brief explanation might suffice if it's simple technology and converse lasix complicated technology then you needed additional details but simple technology you might need just a little bit of detail and then turning back the grain of a sieve the court also stated that it's the board doesn't have to provide a perfect explanation but the courts  skills and that were understood decades prior to the that this is not complicated technology the border documented that it would have been a simple substitution they took a number of we provided and others but i think that they did provide sufficient detail to allow the court to review what it is that they were figure six itself and i don't know if anything could be made of this but there's actually a space between the two conductive wires so that if you wanted to end that with the contact  is the white rectangle if you part of the outer side of that contact pad is actually tucked under and tucked between the two conducting wires underneath so in that kind of this transparent material to go on the underside underside which would be an outer side of a piece of the contact pad correct but the description right is is what is contemplated is applying it to when outer side of every paired first and second contact right area which you wouldn't need it wouldn't need the transparent material to go all the way around the insulated portion of the wires you made up edith but i think with the figure shows since that's what the inventor returned that's the way venter intended for it to work