whether or not there's enough language or objection in the overall opinion to to give us comfort that it was that they really looked at the totality of it when they talked about giving pieces of evidence specific weight or international dental show in cologne germany so we know that you know there's there's a guy who says it's a problem it was a publication and it was published and he's talking about specifically for purposes of prior art he says as acknowledges that he prepared for the two thousand and three cologne trip but he just can't remember well how how else do you walk through pieces of evidence in other words for them what they did was to say each piece of evidence has shortcomings in a number itself and then collectively they don't have sufficient weight or probative value to convince me that the record is sufficient to show that it was publicly available i can't even fathom submitted the i d s to the p t o and they said the catalog should be considered as prior art before the critical date and now there are some dispute between the parties oh well and i would say the commission sort of rule that no matter how expressively you say something i guess it's something that you can say and i d s can limit claims go yes so that's when are you saying in those cases someone filed an i d s listing and then in addition to filing the listing they provided some commentary on the prior art that was presented in the i d s list yes and then those commentaries were used as a means for limiting the claims go that's correct that's what the  that's not quite the same thing is as admitting that references listed on i d s are in fact prior art in the same way as say the background section of your patent or you say point when you said whatever that means right because the question that the way i understand the i t c can reaching a conclusion is there's some ambiguity in the listing in the i d s when you say for purposes of this examination consider this published before may two thousand and three you're right there's probably one way of reading that as saying we admit that this is prior art and we admit that this was published and publicly available for may two thousand and three on the other hand there's another way to read that same language as for purposes of this examination assuming that this was published before may two thousand and three in other words i want you mr examiner to look at this reference i'm not sure if it's prior art but for purposes of examination assume that it is that's another way to read that entry so patent what is your view in terms of the impact let's say hypothetically that we were to our firm what the i t c did here what if any impact that that have in your view on the subsequent  what is your understanding of what the commission said about the idea i mean you heard your friends argument but with respect to whether that is clear ever but they say stright of labor strongly or by implication that this that this is a printed publication nevertheless each little piece is at least circumstantial evidence of something it's a little bit program of to help us move down the field a little bit  to get closer and closer to a conclusion that there's that is in fact a printed publication and ultimately where there's a lot of smoke there's fire and so that was the analysis that was actually missing here in that appellants during his argument to mention some evidence that he believed that the commission did not properly consider why he mentioned sales of the s p i implant we believe there substantial evidence that the commission did find that there was no evidence that any sales occurred in the fact and we believe within the dramatic the structure and there has been other cases that cases for his that was added where the term having a hardliner profile was determined to be a modifier of the surface limitation claim so we believe in to refer to to a particular shape of the region now that would be when you could argue that is what you call an alternative ground for a firm and mean wouldn't even if we did disagree with that construction and agreed with k thank you thank you