what i'd like to do this morning is to go through to predicate and quire and so i think all of the issues that are presented are happily brief and the appeal brief and i ask you  both of those the temperature around the dry powder require consideration i think the warrants reasoning shows a fallacy that i'll bring half out now i know you disagree with them i'm just asking you a sort of technically just a question which is respectfully suggest that with would require holding on both of those aspects thank you remarks to claim one the other claims sixteen nineteen thirty are either dependent directly or indirectly or else they are if for created by reference and those other claim in terms of the be are i standard and its applicability to those two limitations that i'll discuss this morning this court has held in suit go in twenty  and then direct remarks to the decision of the majority at the panel and show the error in the application of that consideration of the specifications can i ask you is there something in the specification that you can point to or that discusses having more than the one driving fluid but i would also point out that areas exemplified as the drying fluid which of course is nitrogen and oxygen and a few other gas species are there are an  instances one in the summary of the invention section which is at column two high and sixty two to sixty four and there are these summary states preferably a temperature of the non heated dry and then it goes on with a series of quests or temperatures seventy five forty five thirty thirty five thirty ambient temperature as successive alternative limitations so those references summary section saying happy introduction into drying chamber and the subsequent detail description section speaking to drying food error introduced them context that that temperature limitation and maximum temperature of the dr who are there is applicable each and every position everywhere we do the interior volume of the  and articulating it right if you had air and another drying fluid and the other drying fluid was coming and at one hundred seventy degrees centigrade some of the air is going to get very hot and so a view that none of the air anywhere in the chamber can be above one hundred degrees centigrade  i mean i think that's what i was thinking of but i thought you just said and i think this was an important part of your argument that none of the air anywhere can be of about one hundred degree centigrade and it will have a second gas that dry now looking at this from a physiological perspective of the inlet outlet and the drying fluid passing through the drying chamber the pill description section interior volume of the drying chamber cools the drying fluid and interaction with the liquid product that's being sprayed right well cause evaporat of the air measured at any location within the drying chamber including at the output so what they're doing is using the lowest temperature a their measuring rod or a maximum temperature limitation as the measuring rod for the maximum firmed if you agree with the board on the temperature construction and the anticipation objection and you have merit stands because the only disputed imitation went to the tempter limitation if you rule liquid active ingredients in the board took this construction straight from the words of the claims and specification the claims in multiple instances referred to a dry powder as one that with a carrier ingredient this is also referred to in the specification multiple times in the three eight patents indeed the the specification in the summary of the invention at column two looking essence proposed construction is dr means not with and while that seems like a simple and straightforward construction i don't really understand what it means how do you judge whether something is not wet there's nothing in the specification discussing percentage of water remaining whether all water has to be taken out whether you know some percentage can be from the rain in so by saying not wet is that imply that all the water removed or that some you know specific amount or amount of water from moved i just don't know and that press construction was i think proposed specifically to try to avoid the skoll back in the recent references that have an additional in trying step after leaving the chamber but in both of those references it's clear that when the powder comes out of the dry chamber it has a carrier encapsulating the active ingredient so that yap active ingredient can't escape and that that's sufficient to meet the board's construction that's sufficient in the in the eyes of the three a patent and so the board's instruction was certainly reasonable enough point on the claims two through five so if we're gonna go by what's in the specification with respect to the temperature limitation then we're going to be reading all of these depend claims into claim one which i think is incorrect so if if if they have really wanted to if the mass and said wanted to limit the inlet temperature to below one hundred degrees in claim one they should have said the temperature should be below one hundred degrees and that's exactly what they say and in claim for so it regardless of you know i think this is just a situation where the description of the preferred embodiments is  narrower than the way that claim was drafted so if we're going to go by the language of claim one and make it consistent with the with the other claims then i think the board's constructionist is the right one and it's reasonable fifty six through fifty eight of my reasons that nine heated air may be used is that the story is not conventional and then at column six m twenty five another reason the non heated there maybe used relates to an charge permits vastly a different temperature condition so i think there is nothing or play between those voter sections to say that effect or static charge is a feature but the specification permits embodying the invention without that particular feature in terms of the references to the roost and scale factor and the spray dry the twenty eight percent that's wet the food is bad treatment that is carried out for ten to thirty minutes to get a suitable dried out or product it's not have optional second step it's talk of the essential is taught as part of the fussing of that record product scaled back same situation of hours sort of who are as bad in which this wet mass is florida has to put into the air to dry one to ten hours that tells you that that's a wet product coming from the first stage operation i think in terms of the third issue the poster form and raised of dry powder all we're saying is dry powder means exactly what it says dry powder in common parlance we all know what dry powder is how did sugar powdered cocoa and it's a matter of common understanding