entitled copy claim to answer that question in race bina says that the claims are strewed in light of the specification of the system then went ahead to a room making procedure in which the patent that says that the claims are to be construed in light of the specification it which the claims here and certainly as in that what's the purpose of the  purpose is so that when you're examining you're trying to decide whether the the applicant is entitled to their claims in a situation where the claims are  close chamber and write their own specification and implicitly incorporate no matter in their definition that's correct and invites the problem of having interference when the two parties actually invented very different things because but that's how do you deal with the bubble reference in bessemer it doesn't specifically discuss why my little quote the circulator systems and one thing that's important record when a bessemer mentioned that why wouldn't it be pretty obvious that your paint mixer closed system is going to generate problems that makes things to well there are two there are two questions there the first question if probably right you could use nitrogen in the figure twenty nine bodies do you get bubbles from the nitrogen and the answer to that is not necessarily because if the nitrogen is being taken from you know i'm talking about before before you before you start before your shape when you're using the nitrogen to force the fluid from the  into the reaction chamber and that the closing yeah that's where the nitrogen comes into play and it will fail and that it was in here going that nitrogen was that you would get bubbles in the reaction chamber because of the earlier certainly in that if the claims are construed in the context of the ship re application could be construed to be a single bottle but since the claims were construed by the court in light of the smaller quantities of fluid and they're very difficult to actually move the fluid right next to where the d n a is right next to the surface tension problem yes there are surface tension problems so conventional mixing like we're texting or like even this flow through don't necessarily replenish the targets right next to to the surface where the where the probes are  ruled that the district court treated the standard of review as to the presence of the global's in figure twenty nine for example as substantial evidence but there was in fact evidence new was new evidence introduced in a course review of that issue should have been you know now the question of this for standard of review is one that i think is is more roe the question was pat ability over the prior art if this is spina or grow our this is a this is a spinner case because the question is are that it's a standing question the question is did  have standing to even get into this interference did they discuss did they invent what share were invented you know is there any interfering subject matter here and the only way you can make that determination is by constru g the claims in light of the shimmery specification and that is peculiar to a case where you copy the claims if you don't copy the claims and the claims are different then you have an opportunity to argue that there's no interference in fact which our opponent suggest we should have argued in this case but when the claims were a dinner call you don't have an opportunity to argue that p t o rules used to express than say that you cannot move for no claims so i mean that is a matter of policy you certainly don't want to have two patents being issued with a difficult claim so there has to be some mechanism for this threshold question of is there interfering subject here in the way you do that is when claims are copied you have to go through you have to show written description for the invention that was actually made in the issue pad but also only seems fair because effectively what they're doing here is a page and a claim away from us by saying that you know they have description in their specification for the claim when the claim is construed in light of best of their specifications it's a certainly it certainly impacts what a close chamber is and what it means to introduce fluid into into a close chamber it could also impact questions well i don't the coast  completely but certainly the bessemer they have those chambers are closed this that there are a bunch of different it's a closed system it's a closed system you're right but the chamber bed is defined in the claim is the reaction chamber bessemer and you want to say no i want to define it in terms of bessemer and then also show how it contains that the necessary definition and that seems to be in as i say and biting new matter abuse of yet and i think he's hit on something pretty important yeah you happen to have mentioned the word bubbles which is wrong but you use them in a very different way than as a primary mixing the circulator does it by circulation so that the the bubble is not the thing that does it whereas her brother points out the the bible is the whole   that is it's a very narrow disclosure but yet they claim a very broad invention in the shabby pattern when after metrics so a lot specification realized well we've also done bubble mixing and we came up with that previously why should i the district court by using a substantial evidence and on the problems issue when in fact there were many new depositions as part of the evidence we were in a submission the the if you reviewed it under a whereas in fact if you look at what's actually contained what sealed what is the sealed chamber sealed some space it's actually also includes channels three four one one three four one four and so you can  earlier and that is what difference does it made with respect to the outcome which specification is used to treat claims in a contested issue both before the board and before district court was the meaning of the last two elements of the claim which is providing the bubble in the fluid and moving a bubble within the fluid and it was substantial question as to whether that meant that the bubble had to a closed chamber and whether the movement of the bubble had to take place in a closed chamber those issues i think could well be impacted those constructions could well be impacted by which pad specifications question was must that bubble should that well be construed to be within the closed chamber in that particular claim element even though the closed chamber is not mentioned in that claim and so my point is that depending upon wh specification and certainly not mention all the context of some of your body specifically figure twenty nine with respect to the question of whether the district court used the wrong standard and apply substantial evidence and despite the fact that there was new evidence presented on the bubble mixing issue if you met excess argue that the evidence was really not important or not meaningful actually the evidence went t