deforming it so basically widening those segments out so that you can clear the pipe and then deforming them over the pipe and that's what's in claims to intent so really the real benefit of the this invention is the great thing is there's absolutely in the field it goes right on the pipe extremely workers easy for the worker to deal with we deal with an anticipation rejection against the independent claims one in nine and obviousness rejections against the defendant claims to inten on figure three a so much as this close or earlier in the pack and about how you could have multiple segments and fastening means that each segment and that those fastenings could be a nut and bolt at each satisfies two of the claim which ations in the sense that it has actually wants or issue seems to me that the big distinction and difference between your understanding of the prior and the p t s understanding of the perth is that it's it's your view than absolutely they are a preview of what's coming up in the detail descriptions no different than a generic claim for example of a generic claim said something similar one would necessarily think that the claim discloses other use them together and the court said well that disposes fifteen different possibilities because it has an express disclosure with a nice decade for example you had a case which we believe is much more like our situation where the patent had to disclose that and really what night dec was saying was kind of metal needs some type of express disclosure some suggestive combination possibilities that you would take the features of the two mixed environments of the two different vitamins and mix and match them together because clear that i'm calling the right one but i believe that's the one that ends in the axial slip is that sentance right ok so it's it's extremely common on these because you want to apply pressure on the what we call the ball pad which is the side where they're connected and that's where you would have one actual slit the actual slit they have two knots and two bolts on each side so that pressure is applied to that that's in fact the lane reference that's used in the obvious combination bolts on the actual slip that sentence is talking about the single segment environment and it's talking about the slit in the singular that's consistent that's not saying that you can use multiple sets of nuts and bolts on multiple axial s one with multiple segments now let's go look at the detailed description see what they show and they show different types of design i don't think what they're saying there's no suggestion that they're saying that you can have a single segment embodiment like the one that's in figures one through three because this is a summary of the invention this is a preview of what's coming up and you have to look at it in context of what do they describe later i'm summarizing in one way then describe in detail because that detail it's a critical part of the disclosure in fact that's the real context of the disclosure that this next sentence is just previewing what's coming up in figures six through ten where they do create a different design that is much larger and opens up much wider to accommodate larger pipes when you look at this in context of the full disclosure there's nothing about this sentence that comes out and jumps out an expression he commands that you can take the figure three type of body image and have it continue to behave with multiple segments there's another point to make there also you can't just take a single segment your view change if those sentences are in the written description part compared to being in the summer in the invention i think my view would be it's not telling you it's not like kennametal where it says you can use these three things in these five things together when you look at the summary and then you go read what comes in detail you do see two separate things with nothing saying that you could use features of them together and i think another thing that comes out of this that's missing that's really fundamental is how would you pull it off or they don't give you really any details of how you create the minimum distance and this is the claim construction issue that's really required to get these pipes segments to clear enough of the pipe they don't actually move just a little because there's a lot of clearance and a lot of features that you have to do for example the victim pattern itself has a number of means for doing it w when we challenged the petitioner on this issue what they came back with in appendix page three ninety eight was an actual new design problems they came up with a new design where they added longer a different bolts than what they showed  their original figure three a and what they said was the disclosure of they actually had to come up with a new design in a reply brief that would work when that point was challenged that's a modification if they had to make a modification to make it actually insertable that's a question of obviousness you have to start getting into why would you make the modification with that be it usable or advisable modification level of ordinary skill in the art but those things once you talk about changing wh court substantial evidence and the case law supports the board's reading of the lewis patent just to go back to your from the very final point can't remember in the record did they did the petition allege  so there is a number of disclosure as along with the expert testimony and i would rely on the disclosure that you pointed to really here regarding the fastening me an be interpreted to expand what the exact environments are in the written description and two responses i think since angela eminent dander does if the boards read it one way even if that's not on twenty five forty five when they're talking about the invention there is being that it can be assembled on the pipes without any dismantling so that it's twenty five forty five sixteen to twenty one you know and then it has you know the coupling may be easily and quickly fit into pipe ends and can be assembled without any dismantling and they try and say that the dismantling has a different meaning but the clear words they without any dismantling and that they are relying on mechanical invention and that it would be just proper as a legal matter to interpret those sentences as being disclosures themselves as opposed to interpret this reference as being limited to that specific environments in the figures i would agree that way that's going to cited reading this reference is unnecessarily limiting it there's nothing in that invention is closer that is limiting it here you have you know saying that you explicit disclosures of the different features and anticipation rejection it's proper there was an also point being made about the middle distance limitation writing maybe some modifications to figure three is allowing for actually insertion it will have space relations efficient to make permit that actually insertion so it's not as narrowing of a limitation as the other side is arguing and that's simply what the boards at the board didn't read that  was argument that was made in the context of if lewis teaches it and so the that limitation if you had actual insertion you would have enough distance to have it be allowed and was clearly teaches axle insertion so there is not a minimum separation just means i mean that that language is not in the specification at all they don't you know lift a specific separation distance that is necessary and that is what they said requires a minimum separation distance and you know if we look at their specification they do talk about a variety of ways like using the angle of the arc uit surface there is and other ways to get there but that's not in that claim so this argument is really about the lewis teaching that women station and not a new claim constructions issues are any further it in there because it doesn't get this man told but at no point was that's a single segment coupling with a figure six through ten there is actually an insertion if you disassemble the ends and open it up and that's what that ribbon is there for and figure eleven is for locating it i think anyone disputed that you can put a pipe and into this the year sixty it's an environment when it's opened up in the without just and you just mentioning it because there's a slit in the gasket and it can stay in the segment when you open it up or to figure six to ten the fasteners have to come off and that's a limitation that's required by my clients claim that that's not present in that environment so that language generalistic we describe the environments and loose but it doesn't say that you can pull this off while the fasteners are together and that really doesn't get to that minimum separation distance in a sense is really what's missing is if you take a look at pages thirty seven thirty three thousand and ninety seven and three next thousand i d s of that  appendix and you compare those side by side we challenge that lewis is incapable of getting far enough apart while the ends are connected minimum separation distance which is the sufficient language to get the pipe in there they had to change the  design and that's an obvious question it's an obvious question that's not something we're able to decide because not part of the scope of the proceeding and we would have had different discovery different arguments and different presentation of the board but we didn't get to the