good morning your honors it please the court this appeal presents the dispositive issue of client construction and whether the board's construction of the term fanning the way for properly ga reason i rest not so you are there's no we haven't analyzed the question of whether would be correct in the absence of the prosecution history because we are relying solely on the prosecution so there's no argument whether we didn't argue whether it would be supported or not supported by the specification so what's the answer the question with the construction be correct if we didn't have the prosecution  fanning the waiver to cool it it does not say did you when you were trying to distinguish the prior art tell the examiner that turning away from it cooling over in the front the the arguments that were submitted as part of the only let me be clear what i'm asking is did you explicitly use the words over the front or some variation of that in recent using the word front and responding to the examiners rejection so we have to take an inference from claims wait for what's cooled in oregon atmosphere by pulling gas under the rear surface of the way for and indeed that is exactly what endo teaches the amendment was made to include the fanning away for language how does that tell us that because the examiner said that it is cooled by blowing under the way for the only amendment that was made was to include the fanning the way for to further refine the cooling staff to include the fang the way for a limitation to temperatures efficient to alleviate the stress and the claim was then a last chance so the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from that your honor is that the the amendment was deemed sufficient by the examiner to distinguish between the prior art endo and the claims that were ultimately allowed this isn't a case where there were a series of amendments made to the claim the other inference is that it does it does not include fanning the understanding your question but will the board and the car might have been overcome for some reasons not just the product which is particularly true since you never use the word the front as a reason to distinguish word that's not clear and unambiguous you have to get to an inference to do that i mean it just doesn't seem to come close to our standard for prosecution history a stop when you didn't tell the examiner  reason you thought it distinguished that you're now telling us the examiner never said it specifically in the board posited several other reasons that it could have that distinguished the prior i don't see how you can post a prevailing here and agree with your point the way they play cases grief is slightly different returning again to to judge hughes in the the amputees the nd alleged ambiguity it was a timing ambiguity and there is simply deposition of the titanium nitride film and there is no suggestion anywhere in the intrinsic record that it's any discussion in the specification and all of what fanning the way from the it's discussed in passing is fanning the way for in the chamber in the chamber but that's the extent of it is is the prior art system cooling to the rear of the way for also bending the way i was saying that not in this context because it was distinguished during prosecution besides the prosecution i mean i don't i mean you made up the term that you then didn't define it doesn't appear to be a term of r and i just don't know how specific it is because it sounds pretty general to me it sounds like using some kind of inert gas to cool the chip after it went through the super hot chamber i don't see why using the inert gas to the rear is not very similar to one o know you say it has different women may have a different he may do all these kind of things but you didn't define the term in any way except there anyway for the term for me is not defined it is used in the specification but is not include certain language it had the ability to describe that amendment and i write it should not now use the prosecution history to propose a claim construction and rewrite its claims based on what we suggest does not meet th ok so this is their patent on a response that this in made it to the patent office in response to the institution decision and you can see in the middle paragraph they said the word fan and in the context of semiconductor manufacturing would be understood by a what your model tells us when it talks about cooling the substrate it says proactively cooling the substrate by blowing a low temperature gas against it it's very different from mental and i think at the end of the day if you look at the way this case has been set up their argument is they're entitled to a clear and unmistakable prosecution history disclaimer they have the burden to prove that they simply haven't met the burden if you look suppose we does not add to what's already in the specification it does not give any guidance as to what the term founding means other than distinguishing it from endo which again is gradual cooling it's locally and here if you look at the roger if they had said that just by itself i think again this case would be different but as your honor pointed out they said more than that they pointed to that thermal stress limitation that judge i q asked about at least ten times during the prosecution at least ten times i counted it so what they did during prosecution was they repeated the claim language which this court has said time and again is not enough for disclaimer and then the other statements that they pointed to simply distinguished and oh and as the board correctly pointed out the prosecution history is amenable to multiple interpretations and we think that is fatal to their prosecution history disclaimer argument and at the end of the day what is the purpose of the prosecution street just by going back to the point you're making the prosecution history is supposed to give notice to a competitor this prosecution history did not give any board found there was no written this written description support for that amendment so they cannot now be allowed to come to this court when they tried to amend the claims during the i p l below it finding that they don't appeal the board found that there was no support for that amendment during prosecution they never said fanning the way for means planning the top side of the river or anything close to it so when you have facts like this no matter how you look at the prosecution history it simply does not support the construction they're asking this court for unless you want to have any other questions i'll give the rest of time back to the board ok thank you them disclose blowing gas on the rear of the substrate and o uses the term flown or applying the model used the term blow but it's the same it's the same type of process where the same process is being performed in each case and if the prosecution history is to be given any meaning in the interpretation of this claim your honor it must exclude what's