the the specification is important in as much as the words the claims must be based on the specification correct i agree totally now what assume for the moment that you were one of scaling the are ok and you were presented only with the specification of the seven o nine pat and you were told all right would you please draft to me a claim that claims the invention that is disclosed in the seven zero nine patent what would you wrong it wouldn't be the first time but i'm looking at this the specification it seems to claim some kind of a test s utilize to select components that will not after the battery is partially discharged despite the absence of mercury that's what this is all about but it is the focus of the discussion on the application that matured to the seven one five and if i'm not mistaken there was a terminal disclaimer filed because of the overlap between the seven one five and the seven or nine pat but looking at the seven one five patent for a minute and this is in the appendix a page twenty two forty four that sings claim one of the seven o nine and if and if you'd like i'll just wait a second so you can get a copy before you twenty two forty four in volume fo the claim is exactly the same as as you would like us to read claim one in the seven zero nine patent and you know this that the phrase at the end which is in dispute here gold for say i understand that as well but the problem is that you haven't claimed a battery which uses zinc as as measured or determined by a test you claim battery with a zinc gel which in order to meet the characteristics of forth in this life has to have at least sixty three grams of zinc and that well will you agree with me that if if this claim this last phrase in claim one is talking about the end having a gel expansion of less than twenty five percent after being discharged whether it has zinc that possesses the characteristics it claims it plays a gel i mean i trust me i've tried to read it your way many many times and i'm trying to i'm trying to see my way through this as best i can and i just can't read it any other what special particularly in light of the the ruling that was made in our last the claim because we say at the end of the opinion in the in the previous case we said it is apparent that the claim can be construed and then the pending concludes in that regard namely in the regard of plai so the thing that i thought was interesting about the commission's conclusion was that they treated as if it's entirely the gel component whatever it is i that's what it looks like to me is well it seems to me that say there's a problem and i'm trying to somehow harmonize it with the commission's decision is in fact whether any skill in this field reading claim one would think that every single cell has to contain is it how many sixty one minutes to a fifteen percent dept in order for it to be within the protection of the pet and that's what the commission held didn't they really criticizing the way the claim was written obviously because as we've observed the companion patent is written in a slightly different matter when you have a potential disharmony between what's clear from the specification what's the only reasonable reading of this test whether in fact or read the claim is referring to the test rather than as a requirement that every energizer battery must be discharged four hundred sixty one minutes before it so  use i say the claim is unclear because it impossible no one's ever said otherwise it's impossible that these parameters can be met so anybody by the claim what in fact is the correct way to read that cl let me ask you a divergent question the commission doesn't follow the policy as soon as the commission finds an area on which they think the issues the case can be disposed of  even if they fail jay has decided ten other issues the commission result was just one is that right statutory requirement of rapid resolution here hey we're back on another narrow issue if it if it should i don't know how it will come out but per chance the commission is revers then there are all the other areas that were decided by the a l j i we do assume that the commission has accepted everything else failed jay decided then the statutory purpose of i t c proceedings with all of the tight time restraints that the statute places on the commission really are subverted i guess is the word by such proceedings because  it was my understanding that the commission argued that the claim was indefinite not only because it lacked an antecedent basis but also because even if the end is sitting basis for found to be the  the claim is still indefinite because it would require an adult that has sixty three grams of zinc yes but both of that commission argued both of those points last time as am i am i here with respect to in indefiniteness because the claim if it's read to read said that that would require a battery of sixty three ok we're exhausted your time with exhausted your colleagues we can give you one or two minutes if there's something that you left tell us that we haven't yet heard yes say el which gel has an expansion of less than twenty five percent of it's not the sink it's the gel again and that was not amended to delete the word