that but and i think i appreciate what you're arguing there still seems to me to be some tension is there not between saying this court has decided that this preliminary amendment was not new matter in other words it was kind of inherently already there and you're asking us in this case to say the same language that was already in the a p in the f t for the preliminary appendant it's not it's terribly there for purposes of your case here and there seems to poster child for not doing cases piecemeal and indeed you know for whatever reason this harare one came up with a different question and now we've got the other two in the continuation and the opportunity where the board never had an opportunity to hear your arguments about her are you want versus those initial arguments because you never raised it with them before coming here on appeal well the motion to motion that was only brief before the word before it came reply that we were entitled to do that but even if we could have permitted we've done that i don't think it's required to preserve that argument for this court the board certainly thought these arguments were before and the word reached the argument and the word reached the meaning of this court decision in harare one so nothing should harare one had to have been about whether there was a problem corporation of reference from the get go because you cannot determine whether there is new matter until you know what's actually in the specification and so they really determine firs and they decided a numerous occasions when it's when the question was what technical material promoted in a document was actually incorporated into the incorporating application refusing to cooperate we're talking we're using the same words for different things other than what i think we're talking about the fact is that the two patents we're talking about now at issue continuation continuation of the divisional of the five six six application that is required at wowed by section one twenty and that's enough for any reasonable examiner to determine along with the fact that the specifications that were file it and it is one of ordinary silting art would we then just say it doesn't meet that standard because we were previously determined that it didn't or would we have to one leaf had the fact that they they really were closed pending applications that were filed on the same day and here were were we use the language go pending and we use file on the same day neither of those happens to be true and then there were other applications that that work opening so wouldn't actually lead to even one of ordinary skill or even of at examiner in the wrong direction no no of of the document they were talking about or person having still heard would be suitable for determining what in that document that was incorporated a reference is relevant to the disclosure of the application issue and so that's a sensible test when you're talking about the technical subject matter it is not a sensible test when you're talking about a patent office procedure like a patent application assess what's relevant technically in a corporate reference to the current application it's not sensible to have that person make the decision or understand  applications are part of one continuing application in office and in the patent office the person who does have the skill to figure out what the op is in this morning to section one twenty of the statute the statutory language means the same whether you're talking about an interference proceeding where you're talking about whether it's in the patent office under prosecution whether you're talking about whether it's in litigation and that's why this court applies it in all of those contexts in is whether the scope of the subject matter that they need for conduit for the eight zero apple is each of the applications going back and back in fact that suggests why they didn't make it clearly that they didn't actually need it but issue to support the claims that are in those patents but the disclosures of those patents are not sufficient for today's purposes which require that there be putting new in the in the chain every each and every application in the chain and they cut off priority so judge