the decision of the patent troll appeal board must be reversed the prior art clearly thought the invention of the seven six one that the cosmic reference disclosed an aperture  i don't do argue with you your honor but i do note that the plain meaning of the term genus is the same material being bound the same material and that when the p t o created a brand new definition for the term a out of thin air it provided no reference in its opinion as to why that term was being interpreted in any way different than its plain ordinary meaning and that is clearer because there is no evidence to doesn't explicitly disclose the aperture picture but i think what you're saying is that since consulate used the same process it necessarily result it necessarily results of that but also i would point out to you at appendix four seventy five and the claim of kozluk how much is the european reference express least says that it's invention is eliminated fabric compris it is explicit your own are in it and that's appendix four ninety three excuse me the other twenty nine and i apologize for bouncing around here your honour's but as you can see those figures at appendix twenty nine figure sixteen seventeen and eighteen are from the cowskin and you see what would happen would be there be a problem because the last the city of the material in the stretch would be hurt the idea of help of house he just like the idea in the seven six one patent is to allow these these materials to stretch that disclosure of was ambiguous regarding the specific layers being a passionately bond and they specifically said although the petitioners reading of the senators are you reading from i'm sorry i'm reading from the the opinion at appendix thirty meaning to a meaning that it doesn't have or that meaning is not supported by evidence of the record or a reasoning by the by the panel to demonstrate why that term should be given any different me what is the paragraph and where it says the last american film or non war carriers right one fourteen are being bonded together by means of the alas the american material that is the say this sort of indirect bonding is what they're trying to say that what i'm saying is that's not what it s was the claim construction of the through the aperture being limited by the board to just the direct contact of the face and she's now i think he still anticipates even under that limited plane construction claim one of the invention the problem is that he testified that these figures were not based upon the specification of the seven six one pat they were his mind picture he those that was his were his mind picture and he based it on just reading the claim and you can see that from his testimony at appendix pages twenty five ninety three three twenty five ninety four means that materials or bonded together without the addition of another material like and he's it and the term all tardiness is not so limited as to the bonding wrong or right well you could come up with i mean that is a possible bond that could be made with ultrasonic bonding yes ok so there's nothing wrong with having bar that includes the middle layer as long as that there's an aperture outside that monitoring side right well for purposes of the claim in question  cows even under the board's interpretation show that it has a bonding site which has all three layers but it also says there's an aperture right yes well so what's what's the matter with that isn't it is a bit tory reference under that claim construction which permits a bond of all three layers in the middle of the aperture well what the claim interpretation does require of the claim that there so in its interpretation the board said both of those things that bonding through the aperture are meant bonding the two layers directly to each other within or at the aperture and then it also does not mean that you are bond to each other layers are bonded together it does not disclose the structure or the method described in the claims of some six one pattern where the ultrasonic binding creates the aperture were and then  substantial on this point it's i think you know in for the question of and dissipate of course it is a substantial evidence issue and  only in the context of which that is the fundamental structure here three layers and layers in a middle a last american layer the reference shows those three being wired together not answer my materials are bonded to each other without any additional material the three materials present and shown as monte each other until we can see are the three layers bonded to each other without the addition of another material such as and well i wouldn't say that the usual meaning is just that the two materials were bonded to each other it's that materials are bonded to each other without the addition of additional materials here are the three claim does not merely require holds and then the two outer layers bonded to each other it requires allege that the ultrasonic bonding greatly wrath is such that it should not be limited simply to a direct non woven and then woven binding but should include on the ng that includes layers such as the last of their layer and clearly anticipated that