three to five seven to nine eleven to fourteen or sixteen or twenty right that's correct you're just with the talking about claim to now i'm talking about clinging to even if the board was cracked and finding that it had at least ninety nine point five percent purity there's no way to know if the remaining in purity is necessarily would have been the same as the product produced by stopped a b and c you know perfectly well our standard of review on factual determination is why should we consider his testimony when that he'd have done it to be unpersuasive in and there's enough record evidence that  determination now the board of all of them with particular aspects of dr williams testimony in the fact that there were certain it's an interesting word they i mean there was there was clear contradiction in his testimony respect to claim construction and the three ninety three specifications clearly states that the impurities from stops and b are reduced as a result of stop c it makes statement unequivocally with respect to the claimed products as a whole it's not so preferred and i didn't and despite this unequivocal statement and the fact that it was further argued during the prosecution history with the wall connected to stops a three c a product by process so there was a separate discussion of the work product but there was also a discussion of claim construction in the pattern a on purity so the board never resolves this contradiction and it stated motivation for combining the two rough and since together with respect to claims six turn fifteen twenty one and twenty you discusses you discuss two batches of pasta knowing their respective purity levels and melting points citing a five four three eight and the red rate at sixteen steady mad state that one hundred and plus page range your response to the inaccurate citation alleged in in the red brief well your honor the sky so what i'm saying is really expect out of us that the specific batch number is not the hundred period the point we were trying to make the board relied selectively on certain batches and if you look at the certificates of analysis these beginning of your answer when he said the specific that number is not what i didn't hear that word is not not represented by this hundred that one specific about manufacturing product that is synthetic in origin you know providing us support for that statement what you're supporting l decision had relied on products that were natural products whereas the context of this invention is that it's a pharmaceutical manufacturing product and not as described in the claim construction something they have to base that on some kind of evidence only so where is that evidence i understand what you are driving at but that's beside the point have two main arguments first there's substantial evidence here for the numerous factual findings made by the board regarding the eight questions raised by united therapeutic comprising those constructions finding that their ordinary meanings the meaning of comprising being being including but not limited to and product being defined by the process steps that was a correct construction finding the ordinary meaning and there's no reason to reverse here let me first turn to the substantial evidence challenge here there's really i think three main challenges one is about the chemical in the pharisees reference that chemical is a danica to the the chemical in claim to and based on the evidence of two professors that were credited by the court that chemical has a at least the same purity as the chemical claimed in claim to similarly when to combine fairies and moriarty is no question all three process steps are in the prior art and it appears in the briefs that they didn't challenge the combination of a moriarty and pharisees on this appeal and it was no dispute below that all three steps are there therefore since it's the same process it must be the same product and finally on the combination to invalidate claims six ten fifteen twenty one construction nope other then i think you're proposing council conceded on on those cla ok let me let me address then the the claim construction result which is not only correct but i don't think any way it would change the result in this case if the claim construction were even if a product meant that it somehow incorporated some impurity profile even though the record show there were no impurity profiles associated with these products even if all that were true the word comprising right after which as including but not limited to would allow for other impurities to be included in the claims of the claim with both include the profile plus of the other impurities so it really wouldn't matter even if we went as far as this other compound i think that's a now i guess what we're asking for with respect to our claim construction but even if you completely put aside claim construction when i come back to claim six turn fifteen twenty one and twenty two where the yes it does have a but there's really no reason to then why doesn't negate teach that it teaches the chemical reaction that's all that there's no reason to apply that extra stop that you already have a highly pure a product that's the contradiction in the reasoning of the board if moriarty is already ninety nine point seven percent pure there's no reason to apply