now are on their face than in just in itself i think i would agree with you that we're arguing that the churches should be essentially the same i mean i would disagree that the word in that it is an orange capsulated n and so what the court and the board would need to do is look through the specification and file history to see which ordinary meaning was intended and what  at least and it's a very small piece of a figure but there it is yet there it is so you're trying to argue that that essentially was something that you disclosed but didn't claim  appears in the preamble and it's a limitation for two reasons the st is that a preamble is a limiting it's a specification makes clear the preamble language is part of what the inventors actually invented and intended to comp s within the claims and that's from hoarding last words from this court and many other cases as well that i could cite to the court and hear the specification leaves no doubt that the inventors limited their work to fluid cool devices in structure is essential but even if it is fluid cooled that implies that there is some mechanism in the in the structure for cooling the device through use of a fluid there has to be a structure that does that here it is if the heat transfer pathway which is expressed they recited in the body but it it adds to the fact that that is in fact if a structure for carrying cooler foods foods that are going to cool the motor rather than some other type of flu and the defendant came forward with evidence that the surface of its contact lens when you don't are scanning electron microscope was very rough looking and the court said that's not really the relevant test roving test is house is motor so that it doesn't overheat then we would be in a situation where it falls within the claims but if you're in the brand situation where every effort is made to avoid imparting heat into the blood in the artificial heart then you're not in a  situation here and in quite the opposite situation figure sixteen which would support the notion that in the law doesn't have to mean you know i mean i'm sorry and going back to his example in the monolithic body doesn't have to mean inside of it yeah destruction argument until d the request for a rehearing but the court said ok will look at this as a claim destruction issue and said there's nothing in the language of the claims that precludes the empty space presence of walls the entire patent does doesn't say anything about walls there's there was never a lexicography by the applicant or d any disclaimer during prosecution to narrow the meaning of the word in actually to find that and boarded it up with that that construction never unhappy with it that heat transfer fluid is just a fluid capable of transfer of heat i think the word is capable as in their construction blood passing through the pub cools the pump by convection carrying heat away from the pump so he provided an explanation as to how it's fluid cooled and this also came up again in his deposition where he testified that he will always be convicted you issue with stefan was the appellant's characterization of the claim destruction channel the board agreed with the appellants that it brought us reasonable interpretation of the claim term pathway this channel the court disagreed with the appellant that channel has the special characteristics that confine flew to a specific route and avoid turbulence or chaotic or random patterns the board looked at the housing as a chamber the board gave that little weight because he failed to even address the final segments forty four that are formed into the lower housing half in the right through it those little segments are spaced between solid and coloring is not the and invention that's the prior art of the book and under consideration here explicitly states that this figure must be modified in order to ross claimed invention and the modifications include creating a monolithic body out of the two disproportionate that are shown as the dark green housing and then the lighter green interior portions so those two things must be converted from separate components into a model of the body and secondly lost wax casting or some other method must be use to actually create holes through that model of the body in order to practice the invention so i think there's some is a must misinterpretation or misunderstanding about what's shown in the figure on page sixty secondly with respect to the you meta reference what's shown what was described  these issues until our petition three area before the board and we went through to great lengths to explain our opening brief exactly what the procedure was below what happened what arguments we made on every step