they please the court your honors as a preliminary matter i just wanted to know that claims twenty three and twenty seven of the five hundred and five claim twenty five of the sixty four panel are no longer at issue in view of this court's does not at all speak to packing elements on packers it does not specifically disclose the a wage amount of three packers into ports that are specifically that specifically were cited in the claims that are made in the two with the number of package elements on packers because it's directed to a case told completion it's not directed to an open hole open hole completion where the number a multiple of the number of packing elements can increase the likelihood that you'll have a good seal decision on each side of up to nine percent of the rules right so that sounds like there are a lot more than just three retrieval factors packers are being contemplated in the thompson reference agreed but the claim requires that each of those packers have multiple packing elements on the individual packers so why isn't it logical to read thompson as saying well ok we're going to have a lot of retriev fork what's interesting though is that the left side packer on figure four which is the permanent packer if you look as closely as you would have to look at the right side has the same invitations so that's in what shown in figure three which has a prominent packer looking to have a single packing element more over the thompson reference says you can change a permanent packer into retrievable backer simply by adding screws that can be that can be shared with enough pressure it is not at all speak about whether it is changes in the number of packing elements or the number of seals or storage spacers between multiple packing elements  these packers in the tonsil reference inherently have multiple packing elements they went as far as to say in the board adopted that it was commonly known that solid body packers packers at this time could have multiple back elements but that if that's to be given credit that should be done under obviousness theory not in dissipating theory the nd point is whether thompson is combinable with the brown reference thompson reference specifically says twice one at once at appendix and forty two on the top right where it says the packers are set with no mandrel movement and also later on it says that in important feature of the thompson completion is that there is no manual movement you think britain a broom is more important than lane wills implementing the lane will so my understanding of why baker hughes relied on the thompson brown reports was as a backstop in case the fact finder the bore the federal circuit would find that thompson doesn't disclose multiple multiple backers with multiple backing elements so they looked at brown which was a reference in a section in titles set in the packer it talks about how he used fluid pressure to move the packing elements and the slips in order to seal the pack so it specifically brown specifically is dependent on mandrel movement to effectuate the seal of the packers the reason why that came to be known as a disadvantage is because if you have to depend on actua a particular packer to seal and you have multiple actors that makes it difficult to set the packers at the same time because you're dependent on the mechanical workings of each individual packer and so that's why the thompson reference was specific to say that look we don't have a mandrel movement and that's what allows us to set these backers at the same time because you shoot the fluid down at the same pressure down all the packers and they set at the same time one way to sort of clearly see that brown with brown as to why teachers away from being used in tongues and this is discussed in our opening brief as well is that brown speaks to one packer and the way you activate the packer is you flow a ball down to the bottom and  multiple packers because as soon as you put a ball at the end of one of the packers you've got to be actuated the packers at different times you need the only way to make it work that having different sized balls so you have a smaller ball go down confirm you need it for a complete affirm and that's exactly so in our view we go through thompson anticipates that gets everything but eleven of the five o five and six of the six hundred and thirty four we think the logical way to get through those is through lame wells for the reasons we've briefed so i want to focus on thompson the issue that he rates st and the notion that it's not clear that the multiple a are disclosed in thompson have multiple pact with us if you look at its appendix six hundred and forty eight is where you'll see a picture of figure three when you go down to the portion of figure three that shows every tribble packer underneath effectively ten zones which means there are ten packers that is the textual link one of the textual links within the thompson reference showing that all the retrievable packer's that are discussed there have multiple backing elements because he didn't contest that figure three discloses in fact multiple back emails so that's the link the other thing i would say about that is on appendix thirty of the board you know even if there is some confusion over here for there's no doubt that figure three discloses three packing elements and there's also no doubt because of that link that there are at least in intensity ten packer's which have these three back in elements that's  don't even have to worry about figure for a whether there's any whether it might disclose possibly a packer without three packing elements because they figure with the referenced is a single body meant that takes care of everything the board says in the last sentence pattern owner does not dispute the thompson discloses using multiple of it's retrievable packers so i don't know that that is an issue that they can raise at this point and they they highlight of that in their life is arguments about thompson brown you don't get to those if you agree with us tough shit so i'm happy to answer questions about them but they were thoroughly considered by the board the arguments are based on attorney argument we had expert testimony with the petition and then again at the reply stage were plenty on the board took note of that and that form substantial evidence for its fin an expert on packer so what what it would say is that you can't look at figure three without looking at figure for figure three to schematic figure four is the actual implementation and i figure four invites ambiguity as to whether thompson does disclose