cannot which is which is essentially derived from the case so what's the essence of your argument here is it really a process argument that you had so much more to bring to bear and the board in its discretion at least took an unreasonable position in terms of limitations are placed upon you you sensually here one problem is that we have a lot of planes we have  so well you can seem did not support have some ability to manage the dock at and manage and you know play some limitations on what you consider that when you can submit a correct threat so two to cross and then we went back for about ten additional ones but we're only proven by what was there some more open ended safety valve in which the board said if you have others that you think are materially different come back and i guess i'm thinking a little bit of a particular piece of ronald katz case in this court from a few years ago in which a district court said there are four thousand claims here you've got a limited limited in the following way and tell me if anything that i've left out is different and this court said that's fine because there is a certain safety if there's a material difference you have the opportunity and that's not the sort of the there is a different context that it feels somewhat similar so i guess my question is whether the board provided that kind of safety valve opening to up here it's kind of important for us to know what it is i mean if you're asking us to overrule the reverse the board here you've got to give the standard against which we have to evaluate release what are we supposed to say to the board you have to entertain all you have to entertain some you have to apply a different standard in which you evaluate it and i read why they have to let us argue limitations starting with the required for humans and i don't think it makes a difference in this particular case the board conceded that our river i'm sorry so i mean why isn't that all by itself a sufficient basis for saying this just isn't the same adventure for business type double t claims thomas who is represented by counsel for the board said we are going to address the independent claims and show you there is a distinguishing feature for each of that of course makes sense because if there's a distinguishing can tell what your argument is and the board explicitly said we could just deny you the right to bring the details of nation motion but because you have conceded prior art that would mean game over for all of two hundred six two claims so we're not going to do that so they did ask him to limit himself after and during a conference and after a long break thirty five he came back later and said that there were additional claims independent claims that had limitations the board allowed him to go to forty but a critically important fact is this having been allowed to go to forty when the braves eliminated the claims they only addressed f it with the forty limit or whatever it was was a huge choose the forty or in these forty that way if you choose the forty eight and it actually was a dude with a little bit more that it would you choose the forty and if there are any other independent claims for which we don't have a limitation and come back to us and will allow you to address them as well but they're bored with addressing the independent family and stations because that's the manner in which thomas hose the motor and  do more than just tell us that this isn't the claim tell us what the closest prior art is tell us how you are different from the closest prior art so we can make a determination and what the court will see if you go to the board's opinion if they took disclose prior art but in several circumstances they were able to identify in fact closer prior art either did a fine thomas or pippins specifications for third party prior art and then to each of the different these twelve features found them to be not tentatively distinct from the count and so for those claims those twelve features actually implicated ninety five claims to six o five then you have to think about what that meant for pepcid in terms of noticed chip and before important notice of the board a laundry list of a hundred thirteen features going to two hundred sixty two claims doesn't tell the court about the arguments different arguments expected and may so the areas that could be legal errors the burden of proof the presumption of solidity the board decided correctly the rest we suggest is addressed by the abuse of discretion and he didn't like cats in the sense that the board's confronted with the problem it's trying to focus on what will decide the issue it worked with thomas's counsel a lot to come up with a process for protocol that allows you to focus on the most specifically on the question of dependent claims when in this process was there discussion i guess initially from thomas's side if ever we think it's important to be able to address dependent claims and he was told no or or what i think the first time is for the court here not a lot of if if the court considers i think it's eight to zero six is an effort to ensure that if someone filed a claim or gets a claim but it has been invented by someone else you don't get it and that's what's operating here and in fact all of a lot of the brave  i think what the court would have to consider is what is thomas saying is a consequence of that and it's really it's a three building blocks each of which is faulty the argument is well there is a jurisdictional issue which we didn't