two corners formed by the side wall with the trunk it's all the inventor is bound by his definition so too is the p t o now clean differentiation is yet another basis that underscores why the board got this  but the names of important clues it shows that the inventor contemplated that this invention also includes non rectangular configuration and in a non rectangular configuration the court of been truncated by the trun may not be typical of the jargon that may not be the same as the other corners of the jar again further undermining the border the examiners construction has now as i mentioned cl practically construed as a claim language consistent with the specifications as judge for most you recognize the specifications here is all about and this invention is all about and to create this shift in the fluid or texts from the axis of light and as you recognize to find that that is the problem that i think for by the mixes problem is they're trying to sho corners formed by the four side walls there are there are three things three arguments i think that to support it one is the plain language itself does not say corners four and by the wall of the one in jar or distance to the axis as compared to the four side walls it says right after there are walls one thirty two one thirty four one thirty six and one thirty eight it never said one thirty five and that's both at the bottom  then again at the top on top of column seven when it talks about the corners formed by walls one thirty two one thirty four one thirty six and one thirty eight and  lastly when it gives even an example of the distance it talks about three point five inches and clearly if that was contemplating these other foreigners that are formed between the sidewall and the truncated well those would be a different distance so there's least three points there that support that construction the board gave to that term with respect to the other terms position closer to the a again i can point to three pieces of evidence in the specifications that support that one is first of the top of columns seven and expressively says at the height of light figure figure levon is a horizontal cross section of the blending jar so logically some of the ways to look at the distances and to make those comparisons is in a horizontal plane of the blending jar and only in fact if you do that would you get the result that is described which is that the truncated wall is closer to the axis than the other walls in other words if you were to measure that distance on the truncated wall up at the top it would not be closer than the other side wall and then lastly as i have discussed when you look at it clean construction of course is reviewed to know but this is an argument that it was you will not find anywhere below before the board there or before the board in terms of the century exam unit or the original examiner i've got a clearer misperception they said they stayed in their brief that we excised this language from the need for to patent a careful review of the file history of the one seven patent will reveal that just before the one one seven patent was allowed the examiner required by way of an examiner amendment that insertion of that language as he states for clarity to support a few of  the dependent claims he later states that this amendment is clearly supported by the drawings and the amendment does not it is not being made for purposes of patentability they were it was simply added in those other claims for the one seven patent it is not for this court this is a brand new argument and i have to say that six years of litigation with all of the incentive of the millions of dollars spent it's remarkable that for the first time this is this is one we get to hear this but nevertheless the what what is stated in the one seven patent is in no way inconsistent with what we're dealing with here there are a couple of other questions that were that functional description and specifications of the rom and or to determine if the specification and the claims the limitations of the claims are being reviewed so that they receive their broadest reasonable interpretation as interpreted by a person of ordinary skill in the art if you get no functional benefit you simply are not being reasonable in the broad way that you discuss now one thing that's important if they're going to cite to the one seven patent and rely on that for purposes of of the way the claims can be construed on on pages twenty two and twenty three of our brief if we surrendered that subject matter in a one one seven patent the same should apply to ash and to hauser if indeed one were to consider those to be truncated walls in the corners those that then the then the side walls would never meet to form a corners which was the basis of the board's decision below what about the word complies judge judge pro syndicated that was of concern to the court i'd like to bring to the attention to the record to the court the enraged sukkos service in case which is found that six o three fed it s three d twelve fifty five where they talk about you can back there are a number of things that are clearly and i don't question obliquely resolved and i would encourage discordant to look at the specifications it's the bedrock of clean construction as we know it's the safe harbor truncated what otherwise would be a typical corner it brings in corners formed by the four side walls it explains he said that there's no comparison requirement it talks about typical had talks about as compared to the corners the fifth tempted while and then later on the next page with the distances it talks about in contrast the fifth truncated wall in contrast to the corners clear in comparison my time is over i appreciate the opportunity before this court thank you very much a three or four of the se