couched framed as the claim was anticipated by an obvious method they're saying it's the same they're saying we we take this prior art method and we get your cla so i think we analyze that under the reasoning of anticipation even though it's an obvious rejection that's all right so if they're not the same then there's still a difference to be considered under one of three that wasn't considered so that's my point i don't i think there is a difference that wasn't considered i think the claim positively requires that the two conditions that are resid in the claim are sufficient to trigger the claimed action and i don't think there's any dispute that the prior art doesn't satisfy that require so i don't think it's  that's really all i have to say i have a submitted a drawing to try to show visually the difference between the two methods i don't know if that makes any sense to you so i don't know if it's worth trying to talk about or not basically the claim method has to be found in the prior art and the drawing shows that it is in the yeah yeah the board explained why the first of all that the two references it come up with a method and there's no dispute that that method has a third condition so the claim method the logic of the claim is that the modified type research will be performed if two conditions are satisfied and the prior art has a third condition that imposes on top of that which can reverse the result so it's a potentially at least conflicting method and so i say if it's conflicting it's not the same process i guess that i am saying that because the board didn't find that it was ok to just remove that step that's a different inquiry and if this court doesn't believe that the try to add a step of not performing as the claim is saying it wants to that isn't adding i think that subtracting trying to take something away from the claim that distinguishes over the prior art and i don't think that open ended patent claims allow for that i would also point out that as far as whether it would have been obvious to remove that step from the prior art actually the examiner had greet right away that it wouldn't so there is some evidence at least in the record that that wasn't obvious to do that and that's not what the board decided it it never got to that issue it never got to claim construction it just jumped to a conclusion that well if this does what you're claiming some of the time and that's good enough and we're done and i think the claim positively requires that there's just those two conditions and no more are allowed and that's a question i mean maybe i'm wrong about that  well i understand it but actually no i'm sorry i my opinion is that it wasn't rejected my opinion was is that it wasn't considered i don't i don't think the board listened anything i said i don't think the board paid any attention to the argument i made or consider whether the claim did require something more it just said well it's doing this and that's good enough and it quit so i don't know the board rejected it but if it did i think it made a mistake i think the claim the language in the claim it's conditional logic if it's it's saying if these things happen then you can do this and to me that implies if it doesn't absolutely state  that there is no further condition that can come in and interrupt that so i think i think that's a significant difference and i would also point out that if if it matters that the the reason for having that wasn't to make it easier the search or or for the search engine it's a whole different way of looking at the problem that i thought i came up with and i explained that my brief and you might want to read it i don't know if it's worth going into