just a very brief review the claim involved  i did have an opportunity to amend the claim and we elected not to we don't need to the the anticipation that there is no evidence anywhere it's not capable of doing that and as i will just explaining is is if that blocker rides on the surface of the skin in the tip or the blade makes a nick  holes or something else you know it isn't but if you simply look at the structure right if you pushed the samuel's device against flying lead up to the worms stop as a result e because because the distance between the blocker and the point of the blade holes is the point in the blade above the bone above the soft tissue it only n have had to somehow combat at in that at that point the bird would have shifted to me to  supported but if they had had reason to think that the point is a similar rate went deeper for some evidence in the record i would have had to do something but i didn't have to know more and ca teaches and why i want to understand this that the blade would actually penetrate the skin and be capable of reaching the bone first off that column one skin that is defined as a skin incision so it's not just in through the skin and in particular they're talking about being able to access particular tubular structures like the drainage system of the kidneys the bile docs and vascular system through the skin and to allow entry of a catheter or or some kind of other surgical instrument and that explained in the next paragraph that the way it works is that a guide wires first inserted and then the surgical blade to allow it to be enlarged bigger than the guide wire to allow passage of something like a catheter or other devices and call into the core patent they describe passing that are making a cut to allow through a patient through the skin and the subcutaneous tissue to allow passage open and disc up the instrument so those are the background that's the background art then in  fifty five it describes the purpose of the blocker and that purpose is to basically prevent the problem where or if the tribulation truck sure is somewhere near but the board rejected that interpretation or the board focused the exam or it made two different arguments one was that and the other was simply that there are plenty on the board rejected the new new article it didn't i'm having a hard time following your you're really be the description here and simulate it's clear that the whole point is to get things and that the reason that you use the knife as explained here and in the prior art is to the wire goes through first and then the plate cuts around to the wire makes a very narrow point to whatever it's trying to access and then say this and those cuts beyond the when you forget about them are th of the blade or on the position of the blocker so the limitation is just that in the skin that's pretty clear i disagree that it's clear that it is limited to just cutting and certainly not just going part way as as my  counsel on the other side would suggest just going partially through the skin i think it's quite clear that the only reasonable way you're going to get a catheter through which is what it describes at the bottom of the problem four five six fifty eight to sixty  enough to get through whatever to shared tissue you need to to get to the to the structure trying to access if you don't the blade isn't long enough you're not going to be able to make that hole so you need if i had to  through lines two to three and then again at lines fifty eight to sixty it describes the handles being something that is help between the fingers off the searcher and looking to prolong that figure for hall to install the guy way that's what i'm saying devices were a cone to shake popcorn out of a few kernels of the time and in the heart which was the prior art alleged anticipation it was a spout that went on an oil can