outside indeed if you look at the claim construction and the records to find the peak sac same structure in both fall within the claim and outside the claims depending on nothing more than the label that happens to be assigned to that st called a chamber so we have a chamber for it within the claims and doctor logically follow it outside the claims even though they are you going to change that answer your specific question roger with respect to that piping and body that was a st of all was not addressed  put the research related hair into the output side of the fan then it seems to me it would be making a clear easily understood functional distinction between the notion of gable and back but as soon as you say that the pipe is putting the receiver circulated air on to the input side right at that space there is a mixing well so now i'm not sure what the distinction is whatever you might call it in rising or any and the greenhouse wall so the claim construction itself made no adoption of this idea of space and yet that's what the board seem to rely on is saying rising years and not an end game but if the arguments will follow that that is an improper construction and that riser would read on that in any of backed to your to your point your honor with respect to rise and there is at least one in bottom where there is no space something the board did not address in final decision because it did not dock claim construction with regard to space or on this idea of whether or not there is a doctor or a chamber because rather not a space exists or a rock the idea that there cannot be a space between the and able and the end of the greenhouse isn't even supported in the specification if we were to look in the specification at appendix twenty five dollars figure to be and able wall is not the outermost structure of the greenhouse there is a space between the and the gable wall twenty six and the outside of the greenhouse as you can see to another structure of law so the specification itself has exactly what riser house a space between the and gable and the outside wall if the bore is relying on this idea of there being a space between the end game or dr whatever chamber whatever you want to call it rising and the outside wall there has to be some reason to read such a feature into the claims now if be proper to even to redraft this claim to say there's no space and because if we look at it what is described and shown in figure two of the patent and all the other figures figure five as well is that there is a space between what the pattern calls an engaged will between claim that would mean rising of both dolls outside of the plane and inside a claim only depending on what part of the admission of g i p you read is that a doctor is it a chamber it also says that it could be a planet but the spacing if it's not the term dr klein and chamber because they're used interchangeably there is simply nothing for us to find with respect to this that would tell us why structurally not with just one label you have to greenhouse within a larger structure vanderhoof been established through the the marked up colored version that even in that admitted structure the no space or no doctor would still be matched by rising up and looking at four hundred and fifteen dollars of the appendix there is what is a and gable a mixing chamber it is not space from the yellow greenhouse wall it is coat planar with it so if the board was adopting this idea that spacing makes a difference why don't we consider the embodiments of rising relied upon whether it is no space these are things that are simply not clear from the record below we're not clear on exactly what the claim construction is because the board says we're progress and particularly what was said was to add what what does lance storm bring to the table as an alternative to what's lance was originally relied upon because of the roof right this whole idea of spacing wasn't part of the original case because it's not even shown in the past so there's no reason to argue the spacing issue where there's a space in the pattern itself with respect to that regardless of why we argue to include graphic lancer and we did it because of the roof shape just in case that was an issue but even putting that aside the reason for the combination is immaterial as long as there's a proper combination and if you look at last and there is no space between it and gable it's area at the end of the greenhouse and the outside  outside cooler from the inside you can recycle the warm air or you could have a mixture between the two the preferred bottom for this control system is an gable which resembles a corridor at the end of a greenhouse formed by the structure of the slightly different question does the description of this non gabled hight embodiment ever say that you can i'm going to stop the hype that's bringing the research related air and mix it with the ambient even if it's even if the mixing occurs on the output end of the fan it's not clear where the banks are in the sea as it ever say use the air from the sucking down to the fan for the recycle piece but it doesn't say what's happening in terms of looks or the the bottom of the invention is described as a appendix thirty in the summary of invention makes it clear that the invention is a climate control system that controls the environment with such a growing region following ambient air from the outside in the growing section research relating in a combination columbines talking about having these three functions and then to the question about whether or not a pipe of a doctor the same thing they clearly are in this part of texas not the workplace generally but it's pipes for air flow it's pipe s me don't think about you know the seven good think about something else our construction of cable below was it's the quarter at the end as described of the two about it once it's the corridor at the end of the greenhouse bounded by the green outside green house wall and one side of the partition on the other side that's our that was our construction but the issue the whole time between the parties was whether or based on the evidence and noted that reading it was not a duck and the reason that the board found  converted their argument from an obviousness argument in the p so there's a good we heard a lot of talk about the spacing issue spacing issues important for a couple of reasons one it makes it clear that research is it done to it fails to meet our definition of  greenhouse wall that was our argument here why would you expect that to be the case why wouldn't you have couldn't you have simply let's call it a pipe from the outside louver that brings you into the chamber them about what they can do and not do without offending this man if you use duck we're good to go what's explained very clearly that there are two things that differentiate plants and dr one is the air philosophy ducks are going to be smaller because the air philosophy has to go through it to move into the growing section that's one and you know those that this is not clear it's too small but its size relative to the structures it's not size in the abstract look into this combination and with varied with or the argument was the idea that we could take a chamber of plants from and combine it with reese in europe but there's no explanation as to how you could do it and when you look at what they argued for the purpose of obviousness they argued that you could do it it's in the same field and there's a reasonable expectation it would work and it wouldn't change the operation but there is no explanation why there would be a motivation of what is still their own experts drawing shows the and gave them spaced away from the wall that there's a space in there just like rising now during the trial they change their mind set on a no that's not the way it works it's a god which is why just heard here that they offered as evidence to distinguish what is shown in the patent meaning there's a space there a is that printed publication five years or six years after the filing date so the question is if their expert when looking at the pat a space there and only corrected himself once he saw evidence that could never have been viewed by a person or as from new york how can we use to not only limit what's in the specification and say there is no space but then we read that into the claims the board's claim destruction doesn't include the spaces if they seem to rely upon it yet nothing in the intrinsic record would suggest their space and if it docked in a plan and can be the exact same size of the exact same dimensions