that they are for clothes from using the research statute to put in claims to a completely different embodiment fully disclosed that enabled that they had a right to claim i think it seems like i totally understand your hard time understanding is your intent to claim discussion is in section of the opinion section of the opinion entitled error starts with the phrase thus we arrive at the appeal which is whether there is disclosure but whether wyler has a staff is it's not whether there is disclosure but whether wider has established error which can be remedied by reissue so in other words the opinion actually says this reference to intent to claim language is is confusing and the real question is that the various points that the feel relies on in the point that you're calling dicta i think that and it's it's in the last section of the decision which says it was not error to forgo divisional applications on something platter to which plans have been made in the original application which was not even before the court it cannot on the present record have been error to forego divisional applications on subject matter to which claims that there and i file my division alive to now i after that they both issue but still within the two years i realize i've got another invention according to the p t o you have to file that application on that shot if you will misses the target i think what you're saying is you think you know very well ours as law you niggas bad law because it did me in a cage where you got a brand new claim enough and all to do what you  who originally were that you know where the restriction was you should have a shot at two fifty right you should have century a revised three statute it's been revised again but when they revised it they recognized that it was no longer the same invention type of claiming that with three fifty two act they said when you filed your reissue and the of why or why would that be why could you not do this that's that's why you can do this now you want to distinguish an rewire and say it was applicable back in the olden days where the change in the regulations makes it no longer if that's the case what argument do you have other than asking us to differ on fox not i'm not asking to overrule wyler at this point what i'm asking is just to read while or for what it says here we're trying to tell fallen within one again restriction is for the convenience of the office we can't say what will be examined together if you look at claims or the original claims of this patent they have acquiesced to reissue is limited to subject matter that you could have prosecuted in your original application say so so in this particular case let's start with last point do you agree that these claims actually could have been prosecuted with the group on claims despite that that the despite what the examiner said about which claims you can prosecute and which ones you can't absolutely not your honor ok and why you would not concede it here today that he conceded many times below that these claims are distinct from the claims that he elected and they could not have been prosecuted in his original application and i can point the court the court to the places where he conceded that concession that he could not have casa cheated in the original application he also conceded at oral argument before the board that a p j and this is a three hundred eighty day ask more since counsel point blank didn't know about it wasn't it issue and never discussed and you did your honor and the reason is because when you are presented with a restriction requirement that office is asking your telling you to limit your claim to one thing convention you you have made an agreement you've agreed to limit your application to that one distinct invention to the isolation of all mother and question procedurally i don't know how this works so when the res requirement is entered by the examiner isn't it only entered in instances when the patentee has actually filed claims to multiple distinct inventions as opposed to simply the examiner happens to notice that there or she point out ok will these claims go to this invention and these other claims you thought go to a whole different invention and he points out what those two distinct inventions are ok and so then the applicant makes whatever like he wants to v the universe of what is being discussed which is only the claims originally sought that pertain to more than one invention i don't understand why either from the o s perspective or the applicant's perspective that that would sweep in all the stuff that he never sought to claim originally it was never discussed or sought about by either him or the examiner as evidenced by all of those documents that i usually exactly what the different inventions are the answer to that question your honor because when you choose that one distinct invention you've necessarily excluded all other inventions and it's as this court explained and doyle if you came back let's say in your original application you had a restriction and you chose your one sting convention if you came back later and said i'm sorry during the original constitution and said oh wait a minute i forgot about these other claims let me add them the examiner would say no no no you can't add those kinds because you've already chosen your one distinct invention that the baby would not have but they could go ahead i'm sorry if they could have now he then realizes there's yet another quite so he could at that point file a reissue as and i don't know whether it would be a reissue fip to one of the divisional or reissue to the original but he could file  divisional reissue right ok to clinton and want to make sure you have i understand your hypothetical if he's in his original prosecution and he comes back with this new distinct group of claims that he never claimed before he could file and those claims have never been restricted he could file a continuation it wouldn't be every issue because your original constitution your original application is still pending right  restricted them if they restricted them at that point during the original prosecution he could file a divisional yeah right but he cannot come back and reissue lets say that he never filed a continuation to those non to those claims that he never presented before that is distinct from his original you like to claim that say he never filed or that continuation are divisional he cannot come back and reissue and say oh wait a minute i forgot about these claims because wh a congressional race out of a right to seek reassured the event that happens in prostitution that prevents applicants from coming back and getting claims to either claim that he gave up because they were not to one of the following invention i just don't understand and i'm really not understanding how this restriction doesn't limited to one invention is that it limits him to one of these three that  sought to claim so we're really struggling with it's a policy that would justify expanding the stoppel notion to ones that work presented here especially when you see quite clearly how the examiner laid it out opening on only the one that has been claimed i have a few responses to that your honor my first response is that policy decision was are you made by the court and while no i we look we we get our kind don't worry i have their response when you make that election you are choosing one thing to invent so that one of your choosing one of the inventions you had sought to claim that's what i was looking for does either one what he wanted which it doesn't or the actual restriction requirement in this case suggests that he has to choose one distinct invention it does not it said choose one of the following invention that was the thinking there on i have to respectfully disagree sure if two or more independent in the state conventions or claimed in one application the director may require the application to be restricted to one or the invention one of the two  reissue and i seek some new claims to add to the original claims to the camera or say at that point no these new claims are actually at the stink is there ever such a thing as a restriction in a reissue do you follow no restriction requirement the application can come back to it within to years that even the amos case or the staff case so i and i totally get i completely get wyler don't worry i understand entirely your agency chairs because when you make that restructuring climate you have signal to the public that the only invention that you're going to get in the application in the patent is the invention that you elected in grand you've made that agreement that agreement don't that you're that you're not going to go after the two as to which there was a restriction requirement but as to where there's no restriction requirement the public's always under two fifty one at risk of the possibility that as you said that says that you can come back and seek a reissue including a divisional and have to disagree on our view signalled that you are going to get in your application only those claims to this distinct interests to some extent this is the idea that you get your first patent and that's what you're going to have no other claims other than an electric group but it's but up to go situation is no more an affront to the public interest than any other broadening reissue congress spoke to this matter want to decided to allow broadening real issues and we may not rewrite the statute based on our own view of the proper out some of the public policy i'm saying we're not asking that weiner be overruled we're just saying that while it should be read in the context of which the decision was made only has to those two claims that were decided on intent to play and if it's read that way then there is no prohibition anywhere in a that was not the holding of while or because while we didn't have any planes before except the new claims and those claims were all treated on the ferry of intent to claim they were not treated as a holding as they try to make it out in the patent office papers and so you can distinguish it without having to overrule it if it's necessary to have won or overruled that would be a different argument that within two years amos came back and said wait a minute i can use two beautiful intro for this i don't have been lifted at the end of the table i can put it up or down whenever i want to the computer that was the broadening aspect he put it back in now in there as there was no restriction