and i was going to talk about that first and foremost and about time i talk about the other issues which are the rejections on the merits and if there are in fact is a new rejection so the first issue on did the board air well when it comes to claim interpretation there are several principles the board has to abide by ron you look at the claim language itself and of course that should be the focal point in construing the claims to review this kind of juxtapose requirements that you have to look at the specification however you cannot import limitations into the claims now also on the reason why review the specification is for any consistency for instance or did the claims lack such clarity that you actually have to look at the specification to interpret the claims and there's no evidence on record that either of those two criteria have been met and also when it comes to use to get to the right claim construction and snowboard applied so maybe eight if your question right comes up more reexamine i don't have the answer to that but i know that because of the third party has a chance to participate more in the parties or exam so they can bring this issue up more and also it is a tool you can use it is not a rule of claim construction but you can get to the right point instruction and it's not unfair as i said to the panel because they have a chance to amend the claims if there is some sort of ambiguity  s there are two independent claims and both claims your site a precursor conversion step where you take a source of holies to convert it into the p s there's a say there's a second step in a claim ron it's this and it says such as syria i mean example it's not even a preferred embodiments ok so if you besides look at the plain language of the claims if you look to the specification it does not support the and they're relying upon their claim construction where they want the removal of the two specific impurities where the reason why they want that is they want the narrower scope so that a way they can overcome the price because because that construction by the appellants was not adopted that it does not disclose the solvent water but is discloses every other feature of course that's why secondary references are brought in because it discloses not just water but wire in combination with the other two  it's clear that the secondary references disclose the advantage maybe it's not the advantage the pan owner wanted it was trying to test but the references clearly disclose that the instance if you use  other layer so there's no question about that what the opponents are doing in the breeze and been attacking the references individually for instance they attack the secondary reference saying they don't disclose our precursor step where that doesn't matter because that purchase that was already disclosed in the primary reference it doesn't matter what the exam or does is she applies the scientific concept that these solvents together will have  extraction that's clearly disclosed in the secondary references and that is the strongest rationale for combined the primary reference with the secondary reference so on if this court agrees that there is no prior art example ok now as far as commencement scope of course the panner has tested in body image that fall within the claims that's not the issue the issue is does that data correspond to the full scope of the claims and there are several problems with that for instance if you look at one inventive trial forces another inventus trial you get it big disparity and how much impurity is removed so i look at this big disparity h allege that this data is fully commensurate scope with the claims wherein the claim is merely reciting alcohol solvent or carbon solids and also there's the results aren't even unexpected if you look at the decorations  six versus trial seven trial seven actually removes more of the people d m it's better every move in a specific computers so even if you adopted the pattern over its claim construction the declaration shows that that invention