critical issue to the patentability of the claims that issue the board's analysis consisted of only a single parent that the board didn't analyze a specification and also didn't address whether its construction was reasonable and view of the additional limitations of dependent claims for nine dollars twelve cents and the result was an overly broad construction that encompasses any component that rotates to drive another component is a threshold issue i'd like to address intuitive in contrast it was intuitive that proposed construction construing the term to mean just any component that rotates to drive another component which is the construction that the board actually adopted in its claim construction seven the board mean what the board i thought it was say we're not going to limit what is otherwise broad plain language just because the specification doesn't specifically whether the specification prescribe the broadest possible construction whether it's the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification so you're saying if there's really only one embodied meant disclose that by definition the language ca no your honor that's not our position our position is that the specification consistently describes what a rotary drive member is in the context of the six by the past and the board's construction clearly cases that talk about negative limitations that's where you're saying not just what a claim construction claim limitation requires but also what it can't be  i understand that that's a very high burden we don't believe that's what our construction is here our construction is simply that the component that actuates the stapling system is a separate component from the rotary drive so i don't believe  earlier in response to my question that what your construction was was a good or a drive could not be the trigger or only the component for actuation or even part of it which does sound like a negative connotation certain components depending on the construction and the definition of factor that onan that it being actuated is not the rotary drive member does not mean that it's a negative limitation it just means it doesn't fall within the definition of system where the rotary drive shaft which is a rotary drive member is a component that rotates in response to actuate in the system in contrast a system that's disclosed in wales when the system is actuated it results in linear translation of other of other drives so there's a clear description of the specification distinguishing between systems that have rotary drive members that rotate once they assessed that the other inventors had identified any question of selling on that was used in intuitive analysis that would apply to all the claims that the standard should have been th if we agreed with you aleck what that i mean is that is that a situation where we would have to say you know we'd have to vacate in and remained with instruction to allow well that we believe the proper course would be for the court to reverse the anticipation binaca claims twenty dollars twenty one cents with respect to shelton on however reman would be required because there were i believe one or two other combinations with then that matches up to the work that was done by the other fifteen fifteen through sixty five that's at appendix thirty four the boards that is relied upon by us reflect the contribution of these other two inventors and how do you really figure seven is relied upon for purposes of fifteen we should just assume accurately show these anticipatory disclosures the questions really come down to just based on the board finding that we relied on figure seven for key elements of these claims is that enough given that the only description in the sheltering one application of what figure seven showed is in tears graph fifty nine to sixty six those are the exact same paragraph that mr shelton himself says were contributed to through ten of them and we relied certainly on the figure seven which the board also pointed out so the figure seven which is the actual embodiment that shows how the motor system works just make sure i understand you did not identify paragraph fifty nine through sixty five great yes you people in the disclosures be interested only disclosures that we relied on but even just stepping back a moment because it was ethicon burden of production they needed to come forth with credible evidence to say look here focus particularly on those paragraphs which it was entitled to do but that's not the only that the only disclosure in shelton one from which we can see that there is a anticipation argument for the stuff to extent that is supposed to be such a non inventive contribution to the shelter the one application that was not in the declaration so the board found that there was not enough information there for one to say you we don't think you sufficiently made your case that there is just one patient who has to a specific features of the invention of the contribution was by others does that part of the invention so we believe you would still need to reach the corroboration issue even if you find that his declaration where he says i invented everything else and therefore the only only inventor is correct mr market does not provide adequate explanation that such a limit is outside of quote the content of shelton one on which traditionally relies for integration of the substitute point now here we think that the things but it never matched them to what the claims actually require so we believe that you can even even if you find that the board didn't see sout exactly where we relied on what different references mr morgan and mr power kirk allegedly contributed to conceiving and those paragraphs specifically describe the use of sensors and mr morgan was unequivocal in his declaration that his contribution was limited to incorporating sensors and the reason that intuitive did not specifically cite two paragraphs fifty nine to sixty five in their opposition to the motions and the even if s true that does not make them and venters every single feature aspects and to the extent that the board would have made that finding they needed to do a claim by claim analysis and determine which portions mr morgan and mr our current contributed to and then compare those two into it had relied it's clear that the board didn't actually do that analysis and therefore their decision that shelton one anticipated claims twenty and twenty one has to believe they relied on any motor specific aspects so while a motor might be important to the disclosure of shell and one that does not mean it's a relevant anticipated disclosure with respect to the substitute claims tw