can't understand we're having a single argument for the two cases  let me say to them to speak for myself i understand your frustrations about the line i think and i think that you have a point about the embedded means at least to some extent surround it ok but situation thank you first of all for the appreciation of my frustration and going to split up your questions into two and the first was sort of does this matter is there a practical impact and to that question i assert that there is a major certainly a practical in terms of a surrounding aspect of it there really isn't any difference and and which is what i understand the board to itself of completed but am i wrong what am i wrong about so what claim language requirement looks not talk about the claim language let's talk about the representation i mean is there any real difference between the left hand version of thirty and what's reflected in the specifications for this pa as you use the words around well i mean if it's on top of the structure surface so for example if you're you're standing on the side of the hill you're only ever on top structured surface the bottom of huge and i don't understand what you're saying i mean it yes it's on top of the surface but it's also surrounded by substrate right but it is never in that surface well what does that right i argue the correct claim construction should be the dictionary definition which is fixed firmly in a surrounding mass i didn't understand that was your idea i thought i thought you were saying doesn't have to be fixed by in your so you're saying that's not part of the dictionary definition that's not what we're arguing for if you say this report is not part of the dictionary definition of yours that commonly understood from use to a component of the definition you seem to be saying no it doesn't have to be fixed by the surrounding mess so and the key point there is that the dictionary definition says six firmly in a surrounding mass what the board considered that to mean is fixed by the surrounding m and what we dispute is the word by and what we advocate as a correct construction is the dictionary definition fixed firmly in the surrounding math so the difference in this case is the difference between the surrounding math we read that to mean fixed for only by the surrounding mass and then they said because our specifications it's not support fixed firmly by a surrounding math the board took it on themselves to come up with a new surrounded by the by the surrounding mess do you agree if we rule that way that nielsen doesn't dissipate not enough why not we argue that nielsen does not anticipate because neal since surface coatings are merely on the surface they are never embedded in the cube corner elements in the way that our machine substrate pieces are embedded in the cube corner elements that are formed i don't understand what you're saying i was a happy to assume that all of that the claim only requires that it be surrounded not that it be attached so why doesn't the olson show that that said there are two issues you know on appeal today and the first is the claim construction and and my first objective here going back to your first question is to get the right clean construction and that has practical impact not only in this case but on devitt if you can divisional said have issued or other cases in the chain of families that use this term embedded in the only finding on the record from the board is that nielson anticipate based on this claim construction i would ask that if we agree that the clean construction is improper that the case at least be remanded for further consideration of whether nielsen anticipate using a correct claim construction which we argue a fixed firmly in the surrounding mouth for that or that action dictionary definition and not surrounded by we feel that the exact definition dictionary definition is the there's a surrounded by in the boy the fact and what kind of an odd opinion because one gives you a plain construction into seems to pluck applies surrounded by claim construction spawns that surrounded by so bonded to that structured surface in addition to the arguments i previously made that better answer your question well it does but i'm not sure it's consistent with the proof that this is that backed up into a course  and i believe that if you look at the places in the specification where those terms are used the evidence actually says that they're not used interchangeably for example there is separately without any reference to one another they also are modifying different as my opposing counsel argue argue this relate to relational aspects however they relate to different relational aspects bond to describe the structural relationship between the two surfaces like i said but embedded describes  g be held at least partially within or surrounded by another material which seems to say well if they're surrounded by other material then they meet the dictionary definition what that sentence is saying is that it is not to be structure that surrounds that have to hold the embedded piece in place that is not required by the dictionary definition all that is required by the dictionary definition is that the embedded piece be surrounded by and fixed firmly it doesn't state what should stick the embedded piece that's what saying so that to figure two of meals then why is thirty s on the left only does not that not satisfied that definition it's surrounded by another material right pieces cooperate with that replicated substrate to form tube corner element the plane construction was originally that it required to be surrounded by something that seems to be a correct point construction whether that leads to another question but i just i really can't understand what what the p t o is doing to help me understand that out i'll do my best when reviewing the question and the original briefing  went to the judge in that case and said it's against their word missing what are you thinking here what was going on the judge yes we because these two cases are related we must've forgotten because this is what particular degreed so that the claims don't require that to be completely surrounded surrounded just a little bit surrounded partially because when you look at the difference between nelson and  machine substrate and i want to start in the first place that part portion of the sentence is the born saying what not part of the place was not part of the claims the extent to which it's around recognize that we have something surrounded is just an issue of to agree and so they do define and that is they do construe the clinton vetted to be around to some extent but the claim to require it to kill or that she said you're standing on the hillside but there really are going if you look at their brief a page thirty four and i see i will let her you know she'll speak for herself i think what they're really trying to say it we're arguing that the machines pieces fifty i think what that's what their real argument is unfortunately their claims don't require they have i don't understand i think the argument that she just made at the end which i understood the distinction or at least among the distinctions between nielsen and the current application is that twenty six which is if they're embedded thirty eight imbedded in any way shape or form it's within the in the prism or by the prism right and that in figure naing of the application the fifty eight is i recognized micro prisms twenty six that entire structure twenty six is the replicated substrate of nelson and here in the replicated substrate here is we're not going to say that is that board opinion it's in the board's decision a right so just a distinction here in terms of claim construction all come down to whether it's surrounded entirely or surrounded in parts is that what you think it comes down to  attached to what they said is the way that you use the word and that it in your specification you're allowing for it there are just attached to and then it is attached to but it's not held in place again we're talking about arguments or maybe for the board and how things have evol part by the substrate would be your definition yes and i believe that supports definition and i think it's i think that's a point that even if we even if we buy into the definition that they proposed in their brief nelson meets that i mean and let me ask you the figure two of nielsen i mean i can see the second thirty eight sort of in the middle has sort of what you call them that is right right but what about to the far left of the diagram thirty eight where it's just on top similarity may help deposits thirty eight through b which are machines subject pieces that are embedded in portions of the my person twenty six they didn't seem to make a distinction between any of th all sides but it's not held in place and then i'll forget the hell that was ok that thirty fifty eight shows the embedded piece extending above the substrate in other words it's not completely surrounded ye i share your honor frustration with the board is an independent body we are we can make requests of the board for certain things but we may not be given up everything that we request for a request and certainly a major rewrite of the board's decision i don't know that opposing counsel would have what it would have agreed that i share your frustration because they may not have a choice thought you were making the point that twenty six was not a replicated substrates are not making we did not make that argument in our brief about ok what we are what is the difference between thirty a least the and that it or the ones that are within required entirely within is that the difference between it certainly requires more than you know one of the three dimensional surface is being adjacent to you know  it had that concept of being in it instead of on top of those are two different concepts and this is the two different concepts really trying to sort of hit home here a lot of our discussion today has focused on the anticipation  and that is the ultimate issue on appeal today but a separate issue on appeal today is the claim construction and ensuring that the claim construction is clear so that should we happen to be in a pet infringement lawsuit on one of our other patents that includes this language and that it isn't even potentially in the same family we're not making the same argument based on a board opinion that is i think the word you used was somewhat it's a frantic so we would ask that this board remand with a correct that it is at least my view that when you say from an entirely by i think of something that is not that similar to what shown in figure nine fifty eight so the fifty invented portion and that is substantially within that there is a portion that goes above and you say entirely it makes the loan or is that i'm not saying that the entire fifty eight piece is wrapped within the replicated substrate but i am saying