that's all that's in the support for two reasons first it's signaling that the previous discussion is discussing the reciprocation which is the change of direction of the member and then it's also talking about that it also translates so it's distinguishing between reciprocat ten which are directly to the cutting portions of the device and in the entire discussion qualified to talk about cutting it mentions in three separate occasions that it cuts through in translation explained it because the true terms were just construed differently reciprocation is back and forth and translation is just in the axial direction that that resolve the issue and what they said is that there are constructions didn't run are bound to be mutually exclusive or redundant of each other and even if that's true it still doesn't resolve the issue of because reciprocation is broadly construed to construe or to include all translation  with everything else away from the claim construction ok so we find all the other combinations ok what claims to scalloway effect if we find it's not analogous are you know is it necessary or is it that you know which claim so th simultaneous motion of the taishan reciprocation translation and response to with a single rotational force but it also requires that the cutting occur during rotation and translation and again when the translation is in compas within the definition of reciprocation that coming taishan has no meaning at all it's read out of the plan because if if reciprocation necessarily translation you've now converted that limitation into a limitation where cutting can occur during rotation and reciprocation or translation so it doesn't further reading the sleep restrict the cla struve thank you may please the court your honour's correct i believe it's quite twenty that is unique to the galloway reference i think everything else overlaps twenty one was not an issue i would need double check on twenty two to twenty or reciprocation and translating is reciprocating whatever the motivation was whatever the backstory the subtext the sentences say what they say translations reciprocation reciprocating is translating and of course later in the pattern we're told plainly anticipated by the middle then we have a whole set of claims other than claimed twenty years perhaps twenty two a project that all member of the time i have and we have a whole set of claims that only require a combination say of course any food would have done it short here and just be clear at trial your honor the only thing that was an issue were the claims that were playing we anticipated so for completeness we talked about the obviousness combinations so when you say what other people match and this is no different than you have a drill with a phillips head bit saying if you want if you want to do masonry change the bit out and then you have a masonry drill that says if you want to go into would change the bit out we have each references itself we don't need to use an expert can i just and apparently you don't care about this because this is not the basis for your prevailing at this record but the galloway reference why is that analogous art i mean that there are testing clay cases i don't respectfully disagree with that assessment what the problem is and i think the best evidence that that my version might be right is to look at the final reference of the four five nine happened in seth if we look and in fact at trial we're told this was lower right hand corner of the belt that's mostly the top of the page you see on the other say the fact that the patent examiner looked at a fishing real prior reference shows that this is analogous it wasn't that the pop happened sam looked at it it's that was what yes correct so often what about the fact that cases like a would occur say that the it has to be directed to the particular problem to which the inventor was trying to address which here looking at the name of the thread threating gas would it go to the prior are like this particular reference that was relied on and so went how do you define the problem i think it's a legal question should we can we look to just to current testimony just seen you know whether there were other problems that the inventor as he was developing is invention encountered early supposed to look at the problem that the patent is describing that's a really interesting question and i don't have a facile answer to what i mean i think it's it is it is a challenge like the the my instinct says that if you're developing a medical drill and you want it to go fast for a particular reason it is within the ambit of what you're trying to remember want to steal the art here is someone with an engineering degree and five so it's not specific to this area you assume to be up and engineer  that that you would look at what black and decker is doing to make drills go fast well if this was a drill even if it wasn't a medical drill you might have a better argument it's not even a tril the board basically found obvious combinations for everything based upon other medical devices and drills and did it for this one claim maybe two and look somewhere else but it really seems like a to reach i  take your point your honor and and to be candid below you argue that that simply aren't single reference in obviousness is a legal argument on this point because the notion of having a hard sprint shaped follower and frankly as an alternative ground the one they latched onto so i take your point your honor and i'm not asking you to radically expand the visual line of questioning but when we have a relatively simple technology like that like like the drill and so i think we have confirmed the claims twenty and twenty two are unique to the galloway reference of those require the galloway reference claims twenty and twenty and twenty two and claim twenty one is not a share before the p tab i think to be solved extremely broadly by removing any reference to surgical devices cutting tissues causing tissue dr and one point on that issue is that the examiner actually did to find that the problem be solved in line with just simply refer to the use of or taishan of force to impart different types of motions moved all reference to cutting tissue or a surgical device whatsoever but i do want to go back to the independent claim thirty two and describe the novelty of that claim over the middle reference and i think it's important to recognize that middle reference is imparting emotion that is completely different than the motions imparted by the hue local proposed instruction for translating but they acknowledge that middle would need to be modified in order to have the separate reciprocation and translation motions so that's the novelty of claims thirty two thirty three over the middle reference and again we specification also explains that the length of the cutting window is shorter than the overall length of the heel member so the translation is happening in the cutting is happening in that middle fortune  so this both of those answers are explaining which of the motions is reciprocated so i don't think that it's proper to look at the sentence translation is reciprocating out of context and rely simply on that statement to say that the suspect cation fails to distinguish between the reciprocation a translation motion if you read the specifications as a whole if you look at the way the specifications discuss or separation and then discuss the translation if you