as i understand the point to be so yes there's an original path that original parent application later on a continuation part was filed and then the applications were filed so the continuation part relates to some other issues but aren't even at issue here and the issue here is that these particular claims even though they're in a later application that ultimately goes through a continuation in part to be particular claims to have written description support that goes all the way back to the original parent with a break isn't there a break to that appeared in the zero four seven patent the specification of the original parent application is identical you well the same material in the original parent application carries through all of the applications there was the continuation part where some new material was added but that any material isn't even included in these particular applications seven that was in everything else i believe that to be the case this particular issue i don't was ever raised below or in any of the briefing and so i've got i did not title to the priority date of the earlier one and if there are intervening applications that they maintain a continuity of disclosure i believe i agree with that and we had that continuity here would you  figure six it has a series of components and it and if you take out any one of those components that figure will fail but that is true of almost any figure in any mechanical patent the real question and it's the same question it comes up in any  if you take a part out well that caused this bit from vinyl to fail it is if you take a part out and replace it with something that is functionally equivalent with a person of skill we are recognized that functionally equivalent was in fact equivalent that it would be predictably able to perform the same way and that's why so many of these cases and particularly the bills that case which really wants more of them especially your argument was what caught my mind in the bri versions of fact issue where the river just teachers of fact issue whether or not the report opening sleeve is necessary as opposed to optional seem to me to be reading from the reference  as a matter of fact and still on the substantial level the player who knew that we have i have a problem with your appeal which you can understand i think yes how do you rather you rise up over that problem if i'm consider knowing what a person's going out would have known about the prior art about what is available to them at that point with this person tell me i have thought that this is necessary to every embodiment of the baton or is it just three three fifties in exam three fifty ok so that's a pin holding it in place until the ball comes down it's that seat and the fluid pressure causes the ball on the sleeve to combine pluck to push down the hole and ensure what happens to the three going to would recognize that you could use your screws you could use and he said you could use anything that holds it in place until the for the pressure gets high enough but there's never been an argument that placement is all that magic your own that doesn't do anything for opening and closing holes in the fracking right that happens when you get to the airport closure sleep part of the pack and it's i mean if you're for example if you just take in figure six when you take ball and you push it up against  of why is it significant that you have the the pin because what if you pan argument the pain is necessary to make your sex work if you take the pin out and don't replace it with anything figure six fails to work the claims don't say anything about what type of pan or hearing mechanism it's used but there's never been an argument that the claims are invalid because they fail to recite that particular component and so that's just an example of how the probably doesn't doesn't that go to support the board's argument that necessity they were looking at i mean they're analyzing the wrong issue what they asked was will secure six work if you remove this component and that's not the question that's not what the law requires if if that's what the law require talks about what the inventors think they invented what problems they were trying to solve they talked about how one way of running a tubing string was to divide it up into stages so we were using one device or one plugs like that to open up the ports in a particular stage frac it another device opens up  export frac that was next so that's fine but it but it's not terribly efficient so they talk about another thing that you have multiple holes in the tubing string but nothing's covering them so you just run that down hole and you can pump fluid through all those holes at the same time  and and treat a larger section of the well that has other problems if you're not closing up those holes when you're running into the well there's a number of technical problems that could come up so when they came up with is a way to open up multiple holes or multiple morning please the court care for at least the inventors never said that the function of the invention is one plug opens multiple ports that's really the fundamental shortcoming with the factual argument that he just made if you look at the summary of the invention the description says the invention always includes a core opening sleeve and there are two different aspects in one aspect would have known before of the original patent was filed how to achieve this with just using a plug or ball right so the question is eccles existed eighty five and this is the challenge for them the problem with their position is when you read this description you will not find a single the example of the language suggesting arguments are boiled down to legal there they want to charge the world with people they're the words legal analysis and its legal standard appears on three to ten and eleven of the record and it's reflected throughout its discussion of the issues in arguments parties raise all of the statements are correct statements of a lot its application of those is correct their main arguments are a single species supports the genus we know that's not correct from curtis as we pointed out we know it's not correct from  area this court's involved decision that decided in part of the scope of the really scripture requirement they've essentially kind of backed off of that in their reply and dropped that and said the board needed to make a finding unpredictability and to the extent that they argue predictability below that's on pages three fifty nine to three sixty two of the record in the board address those arguments on pages nine ten fourteen and fifteen so to the extent that they're charging the board with their over needing to make a predictability find what i was getting to is they took into consideration the scope of the original claims that's a strong reflection of what the inventors intended their attention to be they looked at the abstract and that also  because you've got to consider what would a person feel they are known what was already in the prior art so everyone knows that this alternative was known in the prior art and would a person still recognize that that alternative operate in the same way and the experts basically agreed that yes that it would be easy to swap out one for the other that was that was already known so given that the fact background that's really what's dispositive here at a minimum of the board should have looked at those facts looked at the expert testimony and saw how that applied