don't know if my colleagues feel the same with i would be more interested in hearing from you on the six o three intense times sometimes catches up with us if you don't mind and that doesn't disrupt your eye but i'm doing that would be helpful to me  slipping pages let me just make sure i understand what is that practical consequence if we should for example sustain the district court in the six once daily that's not children and it's not it's not an ambulance so when you're talking about nebulized who gets annoyed you don't talk about one standing correct the only thing the only reference for that statement about one expert testimony to make all of the leads to children seem priority does not teach once david restriction in young children their posts in a six months to five years and doesn't teach the corners where that's an expensive difficult undertaking particularly difficult here with patients for six months eight years recruiting young children aren't going to trial so this is a truly objective evidence of skepticism it's not somehow manufacture there any argument on the validity that would remain that would apply to the method claims that the district court declined to rule on this method claims six eleven eighteen and twenty one to twenty three as a matter of policy we have to be efficient gently well i mean if you're going to ask us to rule on every claim or we simply in the judiciary don't have the resources for that the that's correct your honor that i to achieve the product image and they claimed both and they were careful to point out so in the ceiling eventually column one the invention relates to one is a process that next comes sterile formulations there off and then again there's a description of according to the executors provided a process but beginning a common file a new destruction against the invention further provides a sterile ok i came up with a process that resulted in a product the product is new so is the process and i claim the product i claim the method and i claim product by process you can put all that there i get protection and the product regardless of its produce correct and we're not arguing that a composition of matter could be patentable ended up itself right again in a vacuum without regard to this intrinsic record so doesn't your argument really come down to say that in the specification in particular the references to the invention suggested there's only a single invention notwithstanding the fact that the point is different groups of claims seem to fall into each of those three categories we would say your honor the disclaimer is clear in the specification is not the self and then reconfirmed repeatedly again in the file history because the product if you look in color for wind is sterilize again without regard to the intrinsic records here general process limitations not are not reading but that's the tip of the iceberg in this analysis because even when the plain language may not seem to have the words the sterilizing and we're not arguing  differentiation for a couple different reasons number one that dr just presumes claims are different still in here claims thirty forty two they don't tend from the sort of claims and they are different school they have different occasions including the produced this invention relates to a process that's sterile formulations and used there are sort of these the invention is described as three different things that is the only process disclosed in this best occasion that the record is undisputed actually not just in perspective but the experts that know what the process will work to get this dry think sterilise product and we must remember hearing even after sterilize products is different from i c journalist products so they are telling the skilled person repeatedly that our product is only a blow dried product and that it is different from all those prophecies or products of this prophecy that disclaimers here are disparaging same just won't work ruling out every other product in prior art process and then saying the invention or mention is only be sterilised product or process then going previous believe been able to invent but that's not inconsistent with saying that the process is one thing and the product is one entirely different thing that doesn't depend on the process right i mean it doesn't depend in the sense that you don't have to  art and you are much ahead of me i'm sure that would not i anticipate that there's going to be adventurous and other ways of sterilisation over the life of this path and there may come a time in the future where filter processes may be perfected enough to get to the same product i've got therefore i don't claim anything other than the product recognizing that that will give m coverage into the future even if these methods that don't work now for proven to work in the future i would not claim it just this way and would not have coverage of my product despite those other advances in the process well your honor i think but the problem is that's not our record here is that they actually said filter sterilization was impossible for be definite drug products and drug substances so how is the skilled person sterilized or seem sterilized proc they only know that it came later but they claim to know him as a product which covered those advances in technology and other fields why not that read we would seven exact the claim is not tied in one thousand nine hundred seven and covers of product however maiden however used into the future and i'm saying your argument discounts that claims as to what they include in don't include and they would see in nine hundred ninety seven if they don't include they would see it's a product claim and they would say that covers this product however made and however you case you don't have to disclose multiple methods of producing a product in order to claim the product power then we agreed on that we agreed on that novel when you say the invention by any means matter of fact and rule one thirty one direction's the atman declaration when they were talking about means it did not have heat sterilized words expressly in them they were talking about what the invention recited in those claims and they talked jackson mccartney actually talked about the fact that for young infants with very severe asthma the nebulizer there is a very significant and important therapy for spicey because you give them something they can use and something that improves patient nebulizing in children down to three months right the only thing missing there is three months wasn't three months will get very soon so the only thing missing there i guess would be the one state yes i had this issue come up on the page it was a it depends on how the power then if you're using that term again and claim fifty scores are so clear that it need to be consistent with how you use terms with the claims so clean fifty would also then require you to be using the sterile tower or suspension in this example supported special occasions throughout the prosecution history in particular on column four lines thirty nine forty one it talks about according to the invention there is for the provided  had and then you can use that product in a bigger product that's also packed in part of the reason why it is patented is because you're using them using that being green that's patent and later on in distinguishing the o'neill records which describe sterilised corticosteroids they didn't talk about the second needle didn't describe any sterile dried solid to distinguish their invention based on that and again used bold print bond if the court is going to return the case back to district court we map tags is entitle to get an increase in the bond to cover the stand a good i don't believe this is a retroactive increase all especially if you send the case prior processes existed in ninety seven didn't you didn't provide a way to make all recently acceptable sterile formulation and that's the way they are distinct not merely as we have a new process but rather the result which is we have a new of an increase in the bond after the injection of a terminated this court actually in a national game technology consider the issue of immunity case after the injunction to consider the possibility of increasing upon mount and one of the cases every six months and has been incremental increase when we came to november of two thousand and twelve when we asked for it to increase increase that would've been the same position as they were when we asked for it thank you thank you