aired as a matter of law in considering the description of services contained in the air flight registration the t t to be aired even considering the register ability the service is a cut current currently provides the parties actually agree that this is not an issue properly before the board and even if you're right on that point what difference does it make perfect well it actually makes quite a difference discretion would not change the outcome if they had not if you agree that they did not err in finding that the services are not roger of all then you are correct the th properly set forth the criteria for determining what constitutes a service and they particularly focused on the requirement that the service must be performed for the benefit of someone other than the applicant then incorrectly found that a clock services which was and are forming the network of air taxi operators benefited no consumers and only benefit and was not a register registration the board found that the description which is arranging for individual reservations for flights on airplanes did not include the first step of the process arranging the network of air taxi operators in order to provide the flights they found that it only included the second step which was the actual reservation process once the network was formed well they followed the line of cases which talk about marketing you preparation is not did was solicit air taxi companies to sign up and that's as far i guess he got a as far as a dozen of them in the thirty years that he was using repeatedly and ultimately after appeal you came to this arranging for individual reservations for rights on airplanes but you had sought a much broader use of the registration and and  involved the same line of cases that that we see in the briefs and i'm saying no that's just too broad i won't give that to you and once you finally decided that this was going to be your terms relevant so there was nobody had ever thought to create a network of air taxi operators and and arrange for individual seat reservations on their flight so they're basically he had a hard time i have to assume the believe of the trademark examiner that the final description which was adopted and registered would encompass what i thought was actually doing which was setting up the network and then once that happened providing for the reservation system if you look through a card was just i mean the only thing that has been accomplished as i understand it from the record is that he signed up are right and that no one has flown on a seat from one place to another in the entire period in which this allegedly has been going on correct correct humans raised by counsel during prosecution seem to clarify that it that it doesn't mean just arranging signing up air taxi operators says it should begin to emphasize this is some reading from the trademark examiner was trying to fit that into the list of classes said and goods or services that existed and eventually they came to terms for the examiners didn't use exactly the applicants words but accommodated it seemed as if they went back and forth perhaps a bit more than might have been  do you see any other flaw i don't want you to be if you have a size case but it did seem as if after forty or fifty years it was quite strange for the team g b to say oh we got it wrong  losers after so many years of using the mark that is exactly correct it is a very strange the if you look through the prosecution history you'll see that the they specimen submitted in support of the registration were always directed to the air taxi operators so there should have been no mistake that both the arranging of the first arranging of the network and the second step connecting the passengers to the air taxi operators were both included in incorporated by this by the description that they finally came came out with and in fact the first panel to address this issue with the t t p agreed they held that summary judgment that the description was very broad and could continue to stick with their initial correct finding instead they nord the the little of the case doctrine and rejected the earlier finding and without explaining why circumstances changed because they hadn't there were no new issues there were new arguments there were no new facts they simply came out with a different way and we believe this is a very grave error especially in light of this injustice has been done to any they've been using this mark for forty years and you know thirty years after they saw  admittedly in his own words never made a reservation never communicated with a prospect of passion and never arranged for anyone to fly any place on any kind of an aircraft services that the examiner was proposing but it's one of the problems but the basic problem is that the applicant that the services were missed described in the application as filed he said he simply trying to recruit ect actually operators who would cooperate with him and providing point to point transportation he was trying to do the business he was trying to success but using the mark on the letterheads getting some traffic because of the providers to sign up so there is no rights at all someone can come along and say never mind i team sixties that's not in the record since nine hundred ninety two i didn't see any allegation of earlier here so perhaps that never perhaps i was never explored it was but on the record there was no question that the use by a cup was thirty years earlier not a russian success i gather then i don't know whether it is or isn't still trying i mystery as a later application subsequent to our application in which he does describe his services as a ranging as a fleet of it actually operate is to carry passengers instant influence or not before you described services out all consequently the transfer of the application was awarded so the application on a supplemental register was and i think you've touched on it a very important issue with petitioners council at seven thirty one where the it was originally described as a communication service by cox  south and his attorney but then it was the trademark examiner who rejected that it was the trademark examiner who rejected that because it was an incorrect description based on as the communications continued back and forth between the trademark examiner and the cox attorney there are actually a couple of specimens submitted that explained air flight in the network for example at seven sixty six specifically says air flight is a network and i think that's why the train marked examiner who is an expert in describing services specifically trained to identify the correct and proper description of services suggested the word in arranging a so broad so that it would encompass both the arranging of the network and  later the use of connecting the network to the potential consumers i think it was repeatedly shown during the prosecution history that the process included the creation of a network it's only that the t t be the second panel of the t t a b who failed to appreciate that that was an incumbent by the description and that was its