the calendar you have two government employee cases that are being submitted on the grapes and therefore will not be argued and we have the unusual situation of having four patent cases get in one morning it's not uncommon to have two of them but we have two parents of the same path and same parties and we have one for misshapen office so anyone who doesn't want well you're wrong on that because you do have to you have to enable the entire scope of the client you took is there now how are you going to show us that you have been able to something beyond the jacketed pressure device claim we now agree perhaps with twenty twenty hindsight we wouldn't so agree but we now agree that jacket less devices are within the scope of the claims how  our case law yes we have an angle case which didn't put that question in to it didn't focus on the question of the entire scope of the claims in which there was some language that as to which somebody of reasonable skill in the art would be able to enable or create without undue experimentation when the standard ducker isn't that and that principle it seems to me cuts across all arts it's just that it's more frequent perhaps more frequently satisfied in mechanical arts is not really the doctrine we're looking at here the problem is how can that happen to a vision all these is testimony among others the jacket less device would take an unknown amount of time to develop and there's a finding on a factual issue that you have not enabled a jacket less device one twelve says the specifications started painting written description of the invention and of the manner in process of making and using it in such fools clear concise and exact terms except the district  to what mr chambers says is conflicting testimony about the on the nature of the experimentation innocence or mr cheney decision that there was nothing unusual about the inventor's testimony quite value may be automatically computed by detecti eight would disclose to the limitation causing the motor to move and tracking the location of the motor that presumably and i'll sure i know this isn't of fluid into the patient over a certain period of time so so you're saying listen here and in the operation this machine that it has to be one way or another tracking the motors that it's clearly proper o this are hardly make sure this is not a machine with the ram without the inside of the syringe touching the ram that is in their system sticking up through the middle how do you make sure that that doesn't happen when you and secondly i think you had three issues one of which would argue for the same results given to ship namely invalidity so i don't think that's a proper process the the with all of those qualifications you can either use three minutes now or save you haven't met the application yet you've planted here and you plan to predicate the v p application on an equitable conduct permit and presumably i don't suppose there's anything that would prevent the district court from saying well in this much as you have predicated the application and equitable conduct i will now take some kind of look at an equitable cut that the court would be barred from doing that by by our failure to say that she was required to no reason so far before her because of that piece or not for that she should think that it is a life issue it could become much something that's moot now can become live later i suppose i suppose of the judge has invented what you claim what's wrong with that but you don't have to show that you would use every possible variation no as long as it's within the knowledge of one a skill in the art and one of skill in the art good with what you have disclosed with out on do experimentation reach other embodiments as judge bryson explained to us earlier you don't have to with great particularities get every detail but we've got a circumstance where you expand your claims beyond what you can show you unable don't we know that's what the court found and i and you haven't showed us any great error  to this case you first claim let's say a hybrid car in and you describe a particular hybrid car that is that gets sixty miles to a gallon and then you discover somebody else  has has a a different design of car that gets more than sixty mpg and you say ok mom i'm now coming with a claim which is to any vehicle that gets sick more than sixty miles to a gallon well you've been able that in the sense that you have one such a vehicle the next case