thirty to thirty seven you have obvious arguments about independent claims one in eleven yes and at thirty seven you discuss all the remaining dependent claims in only one paragraph and argument really nothing more than an assertion does not preserve a claim rather for this reason these are all dependent claims and we're talking about limitations that really become an important if the other arguments away what is from with you you have four separate rejections here and not all the claims stand or fall with pot and your for example you've got the obviousness of laser smile in particular which at least affects some depending claims that are not primary reference the do you want to finally decide it but did you just answer him saying everything stands or falls on that thing you want to focus on and give away your dependent claim arguments which are basics there are some dependent claims that are only standard falling on certain combinations of art and maybe not every combination of art is affirmed the ball here know that with all the combinations do have outgrown them and so we're talking about a reference to that  and laser smile for example that the board articulated no motivation to combine anywhere and argument with i happen to agree with that have has nothing to do with what pot interaction discourse is really it has nothing to do with whether i would affirm or reject the anticipation argument and it and it contains certain depending claims that are nowhere else rejected under any of the other arguments so if you succeed on that particular argument you could actually walk out of here not analogous and so to combine that with the other references doesn't make sense  a laser system useful in medicine or dentistry and based on this court's decision in corning glass works this court must review the entire patent to understand whether what prior reference for fiber for glass fiber that met the limitations of a and b and they argued that it also could act as a loop an optical wave guide for a limited period of and this court said no litmus test can be given with respect to whether the introductory words of a claim provide limitations the effect preamble language should be given can be result only on optical communication system not on general improvements similarly here here on earth inventor dr chalfont was not working on the particular problem of  the i'm sorry he was working in the secure problem of a laser system not a general improvements to a laser module or even a a laser in general but your crime isn't limited to that for all uses and so if you're saying that it's useful for the years for which we developed it as opposed to limiting it to that mirrors you're not telling us that this style of claim writing was intended but didn't i think didn't succeed to limit the claim to a particular use we think again as in the corning glass welcome in the claims yes with the preamble a laser system useful for medicine in medicine and dentistry but you're telling us that gives life a meaning if you use the words of corning glass works b additional limitation just isn't corning where we have an optical waveguide ok there was another fiber the limitations of a and b but it could not function and as an optical waveguide as described in the specification isn't the difference though between corning and this case the corning's preamble provided a an additional structural limitation and your limitation is the traditional intended use limitation the judge newman has referenced and that has in almost every patent i've ever read and present a statement of intended use appears in the preamble and those are not generally as limitations and the difference i see for you between corning in this case is corning provided an additional structural limitation in the preamble and yours is just a statement of intended use your honor not just a statement of intended use it also has a laser system and in the specification it talks about so my conductor based laser systems provided that are useful for tissue cutting and there are pukes in medical and dental treatment up the laser system isn't the issue the question is whether it should be limited to useful and medicine or dentistry as i understood your argument of the need to be read together well no actually they don't there are lots of cases we've decided where portions of a preamble are legitimately limitations but other portions are statements of intended use and not limitations so i mean i don't i don't understand your argument not i understand that in some cases that may be true but in this case if you look at the entirety of the patent scorning says we must do it talks about a laser system the entire description in the specification concerns a laser system useful for medical and medicine and dentistry there's a lot here at the other prayer references here not to a laser system at all and start are the prior art references here not to a laser system the but we're looking at one of the claim limitations is uses the term store and storage and that can only happen here in this case under particular if you if you can if you include holding something in your hand meaning cleaning the fiber on the spool if that is to store or if that comes to storage and we would submit that simply can't be additionally the words adapted for you know in the claim making it where they say at least thirty five and thirty six of the very brief the teachings of calendar and laser smile teach away from the proposed combination i kind of maybe wrongly  assume that what they were arguing here is there wouldn't be a lot of motivation to combine these two things because of the manner in which they teach just close but i think and in the very end it says you know it teaches away from this combination i think that's where i got the idea from that they were making that argument  so what what the parent is arguing there is that when that laser smile and this is some paraphrasing from their proof that the laser smile of the intended purpose of laser smile is to make fiber easily available and needed and to retain the waveguide and the court after reviewing the specification of that patent determined that the article waveguide was a critical part of the invention but the optical waveguide didn't appear anywhere else in the claim and therefore added a support of their i mean the analogy i keep thinking is in dentistry and everything else when people started taking old dental tools and using them to do copy work or whatever the that the system be easily maneuverable or or comfortable all they require are these four or five elements housing a laser module fiber and with respect to claim eleven   fiber coming out of the laser module and the fiber terminating in the hand and then requires the extra fiber the outer casing all of these other things and when those elements are all put together you have a system of ok you know whether that where the one one thing that is different about this case a b a b these are we are preamble case law which i don't think is really the way it's argued here but one thing that's different between this case and other precedent where we've held the preamble is not a limitation if it's just a statement of intent and purpose is this case is as close as you can get to an a c even basis without actually being in a seat in basis you know we certainly we have a lot of preamble cases that say if the body refers for in basis back to something in the preamble that it's a limitation the preamble is in fact a limitation hands down but this case it's not it's not exactly in a seat in basis but unlike statements of just general intended purpose which are usually limited to the preamble in most of the cases where we've been looking at these questions of is the preamble limitation here you have a statement intended purpose in the preamble and then you actually have a almost identical reppert reputation repetition of that statement in one of the flame elements so does that create a slightly different situation than all the cases where we've rejected the idea that it's just a statement of intended purpose drawn  prosecution oriented technical argument i don't know that it does but does should it nonetheless sort of fall under that rubric because clearly what they are saying is that this statement of intended purpose is more than just a generic statement of falling away right exactly so they suggest a at least a reason to try to find another way to do it right so if we have this any dishes with whether pog or one satisfies the preamble assuming we find that the family is a limitation to which we  a system that can be useful in medicine or dentistry it's much like a patent claim that goes to a television if you have packaging the ships just the l e d's for n l e d television it doesn't have any power supply it doesn't have any means of applying the laser through whether through a hand piece or anything else it's not a usable system if all it is is a laser module in a how that optical fiber must be grasped and held in place when the spool is manually handled it says that the wound up the fiber must be held on to the spool up until the spool is attached to the base plate this must to the extent that the board found that part enter is configured to store a significant volume of extra fiber i don't see any support in the record for that but what i do see support the record for substantial evidence anyway is there finding that school twenty that the phrase adapted to generally means made to design to configure to me and in this case capable of is not sufficient were invented was good i'm talking about a devi that provides maximum manual dexterity and maneuverability during use for a medical or can i ask why why it is that you think and having a volume sufficient to store extra fiber it looks like those are two separate limitations and i don't know that the second one has to be true in all of the variations of the first one so why why do you think it does w don't agree it's modifying restore i definitely rates modifying module but i don't i didn't necessarily understand why it was it had to be true when it's both attached to detached even though attach