subtlety there so the experimental results that are that are shown are with the commercial product pack bio that includes this and this stuff but there are definitely shown alternative approaches there are for example magnetic particles semi value to the contrary they of timidly concluded that reading this paragraph as a whole what must be going on here is some version of sentences and then once you have your strands with your labels you're you're then using the nano for sensor and then it's a little unclear in this respect whether using the sensor to to identify the labels or an entire something size strand well mitt was clearly the focus of the author but what is critical here is understand what the claimed invention is which is the hairpin and the it doesn't that the brilliance of it is you have a single  unprecedented in my view is in the prosecution history to demonstrate the unexpected benefits of the invention using there been invention it doesn't seem like this even a debate about that again the i d c decision itself says it's undisputed that oxford uses the invention and gets great results with it and that was what was cited in the declaration to show unexpected results and so to say that they examine or look at the publications of oxford that definitely don't involve synthesis you can that's in the record and said ok this shows how great it works and it's a nonsense this is just reaction and then it's granted on the basis of that what if i look through that prosecution history discussion and see that that based on the discussion between the applicant and the examiner the focus is really on and so when we look at this patent i understand your point which i think makes some sense which is that if we can say point of novelty the point of novelty here isn't the specific kind of sequencing whether it's by surprise or post something  get it's the idea of using this link or this cherubim to create this right single strand out of the ordinary double strand but the question is that doesn't mean that you know we have rule under the law that an inventor can't characterize something in the prior art in a new different way for the country's own purposes and so the real question is how did this applicant this inventor use the term single molecule sequenced as of two thousand two thousand now that's where so i think it's really not subject to dispute that single makes sense if you do one molecule at the time if you're doing a group to just figure out what the group does then keeping the integrity of the two pieces together doesn't have any value that is what the declaration stated in the paper and the prosecution history so everyone is focus single molecule see the examiner relied on unexpected benefits of an out of something that the i d c help isn't within the scope of the claim so a person reading the file history would clearly recognize a bit more first of all your experts declaration does not say what the understanding of single molecule sequencing terminology was back in two thousand and eight and two thousand not right it's the admission of the other side expert that the standard terminology on they are stick with me i think you now if you ok in the statements in the declaration submitted in prosecution the other secret did not address the meaning of that terminology and two thousand a two thousand not correct i disagree he put in two references to the post to show the meaning and both were prior art references so he specifically showed how the meaning in the york was i totally disagree with that the whole point of the declaration patent trying to expand the scope of a claim during prosecution are not to be given any weight how do you deal with i deal with it simply that the opposing expert point blank said the statement expanding the scope of the twenty story prosecution by the patent he won the case to say that we should let me be clear because there's so much supporting evidence for the basic proposition that it's just further evidence that everyone's i noticed so you agree then we we have to find support for your position outside of those statements the prosecution history i don't think any one piece of evidence here or carries the day and i definitely don't think that's what what the decisions based on so what what are we getting in the face of all this evidence the presumption against the interpretation the fact that the path was granted based on a can embody me that's outside of the of the construction the discussing a lot of different processes within the ambit of synthesis and the summary of the invention repeatedly talks about synthesis and so i guess one could argue we have a take away from reading the summary and then the opening columns of the detail description that this inventor was entirely devoted to the idea of doing the sequencing through synthesis and i think that's what was the for the i d c and as we all know this specification single best guide to understanding the claim and so even if a particular claim term had an established meaning it's stamp of technical meaning at the time invention to skilled artisans there is nothing on that is just out of the pattern is this would be the high water mark for this forget about all the other evidence i just decided and it's the good stuff what i'm saying is there's a lot of different inventions in here so the repetition of synthesis could relate to a lot of things what's important is that everyone agrees the invention is independent of synthesis step and the patent does have the concept in discussion which says although described in terms of the specific smart sequencing process this sequencing compositions of the invention which include the hair then the nucleotide analogues may be detectable by any of a variety of different mechanisms and then the sentence keeps going and there's no period there right polluting the presence of four ounces fluorescent dye labels coupled to the testimony was that in two thousand and eight single molecule sequencing didn't have a well established meaning and it wasn't until maybe two thousand and eleven absolutely not and the fact that the i d c relied on indeed there are so many what you know there are so many ways you could use it i would say not traditionally just to be responsive but i wouldn't i wouldn't i definitely wouldn't preclude the possibility that labels could be used in a system where you're cleaving you're cleaving the bases they go for i would say that we before the person of general skill in the art was actually really aware you know of single molecule sequencing and aware of that type of thing probably was another couple of years  probably would have been like two thousand and ten or something like that maybe two thousand and eleven that type of thing being the answers the question then he proceeds to add although most people really didn't have an understanding of single molecules unless you were on the leading edge continuing on to cage line by most people didn't have much of a sense of a single mo all eight i would say that before the period before the person of general skill in the art was actually really aware you know a single molecule seeing and seeing and aware of that type of thing probably was another couple of years that's fair you want i understand you want to say it was nascent technology that's fine but nevertheless he said what he said i believe it's two thousand and eight two thousand and nine but maybe cover the time i mention it is not limited to the at lines ten through fifteen the question was to a person of ordinary skill in the art in the two thousand and eight to two thousand and nine time period in terms of the standard terminology in the says two thousand and eight to two thousand and nine you're suggesting that exclude march two thousand and eight and now i'm suggesting that over that range there may have been a better understanding of the terms single molecule sequencing but it certainly was not that the the something in the claim language itself is driving us towards i really question is whether this inventor did something to truly constrain  characterize the meaning of single molecule so you can be put within the context of sense and this is only that's really the big here right and we're not only relying on the plain language here it's simply supports the commission's construction the nannup or sensor from clark in the context of concept what is being fed through the sensor precisely clark doesn't doesn't use labels it only talks about sensors no i'm asking you to paint a picture for me what is happening about labeled nucleotides clark as a destructive process of the labels aren't nucleotide the citation is solely for the purpose of disclosing the end up that clark discloses nannup or sensors it doesn't talk about that label does something in the context of a fluorescent label the label is cleaned off or there's a lot of flash of light and so that's what everything before is talking about as mr rein this a metal or a molecule that that has a specific signal when it goes through that through the nannup or because i'm in a port just direct to text differences in current writer using the sensor to determine what the labels you're using the sensor to detect what just making a copy it's the and that's what is mr oil as part of the template the template here the coin talks about a template a template is something that is copy and so the claims use of the word template is very relevant here because when you talk about a synthetic process you're talking about synthesis you're making a copy and so the language of the claim gets this idea of you're taking a d n a strand and making the whole game a strain into a template by adding that linger on which creates just one if i want to just tradition mr edison makes the argument that that template somehow novel that nobody ever thought about that people were and have been using that type of template for decades  we're trying to understand how to understand the meaning of single molecule but to continue on the point in time to continue with a sense or the sensor would detect whatever that label is it is it is a molecule that is going to according to the inventor according to what the patent is saying we're contemplating you'll get a different signal but that is a synthetic process that context of those statements mr rayney says argument that that that the patent contemplate is anything question yeah i'm just wondering why somebody didn't say objection foundation they can big us and cetera et cetera i will talk to the person do deficit so what you're asking us to not give credit to your own in regents of corn university said i disavow when the specification makes it clear that this is what the invention is that you don't need an expressed is about you don't need to disclaim doesn't have to be in to express it can be implied that's fine but the invention is being described is anything more than a template if then an application of a well known template in template dependent processes as retractible technology said the i'd like to just clarify my response to judge dyke the turner declaration interest made it multiple times refers to cooked up goes through the history of the n a c which says gunther of the provides a review specifically describing the various single molecule se described above the term single molecule seed was as well understood in the field at the time of expansion to mean carry out and states so the evidence of the of the standard usage is the square admission of their own expert in the declaration actually facing what the plain meaning was they just kind of went through and then cited this really i think unfair statement from dr ehrlich about errors errors in it and commercialization to overcome all of that and says well there are  so his story of how you might do it is based on nothing at all the other thing i want to say is if you go to column nine in ten there's a bridge of nine ten it describes this concept of the hairpin invention and it describes it and it doesn't have anything to do is synthesis it goes through and it says you take one you take the other you put it in between and you can do them both at the same time it doesn't care how it goes to the sensor and what happens and so that's the part you can't look at that to