the next case argument is sixteen one six seven eight no hardness versus nobody pharmaceutical whenever you're ready  though there's a lot of discussion in this case with regard to kind of what i call process issues what is your bottom line in terms of what constraints if any were conclusion so on what will where does that take you on your ideal weight can be that phrase can be construed in different ways i guess and it's of course followed in the baxter decision by a big word which is called however ah and it goes on to explain so weird is that i mean i know do we rely on that phrase where does that lead us i'm trying to really pin down your position about whether it's ideal or not ideal that all forms would reach the same conclusions so what well they all it should not have reached an office a conclusion without having an explaining a sound basis for doing so well that's true whether or not there's a court decision out there or not so one trying to glean whether it's your position that there's any difference in terms of the way we would analyze what the poor did here in because of the district court's other proceedings read at there is a conclusion and found that theoretical susceptibility would not have been enough to make the patents so i don't i'm trying to find out the answer to the question so what i mean is the forward not free to make findings i in addition to the fact to what judge still pointed to which was the the board explicitly drill down on the district court there's another however many pages of analysis which it may not be specific to what the district court said but doesn't that also go to we have a thorough analysis here do we not about what the board how the board construed and analyzed the evidence there's no deficiency in of that self between what i what the four did here right well the  parallel proceedings are coming up more and more often so that's why i'm probing the some not just sort of trying to give you a hard time but what i guess what does that mean i mean the but we have to evaluate the board's analysis here is we do in every case based on the evidence and its analysis what i'm trying to discern is if there's a parallel proceeding in a district court case what more not that it wouldn't by not have been helpful not that it might not have been but what more are we choir of the board in this contests in order to just watch what otherwise may be on their face and based on their analysis seems to us perfectly ok is there federal court the board should ideally not come to a different conclusion and want a much hope it doesn't snow tonight but i mean that that's ideal that we would all agree in every case i mean that's that's nice but does that get us what does that mean that we have to apply that just because it's ideal doesn't mean it has any of that doesn't give us any information about what effect that might have and what standards we are to apply here mean that's one very strong reason i would think for why they came to the conclusion that they did it right that the board could say that in every single case simply say the burden is different we find the experts persuasive but they did more than that they did go online as judge pointed out they go wanting page eighty for example to talk about you know and many other pages to talk about why it is they concluded the way they did on this you know that assess whether or not the difference in the burden justified the difference in the decision so that's my question even if we were to agree with you what are we compelled to do if we were to fairly read this board opinion in an of itself and say this is more than sufficient there's substantial evidence here they did all the analysis they went through everything in the record and we're satisfied that reading the four corners of their opinion it are you saying that because they had a higher burden here to differentiate every finding to explain ever every different finding they had from the district court and talk about that and explain how the burden explains the difference here and in the it given their failure to do that is that a basis for our reversing their opinion i mean i'm just trying to figure out what do we do with that even if we agree with everything you're saying what do we do with that we're on is if you if you agree that all of the findings are supported by substantial evidence and that then it follows that the court was a sort of the board was justified in departing from the district court but the board hasn't provided is that the standard though is the standard whether there steps gentle evidence to support what the board did or is the standard we are to apply and review was the forward here justified and i don't know what standard that justification takes on but was the board justified in its disagreements with the district court if this is a just a court opinion by the way which we didn't review this case right not on this required what standards we are complying to inform that your honor i think that that justification would need to be supported by substantial evidence it would be a finding of fact that there is a difference between the district discuss at some level the descriptor court's conclusions right correct so the question maybe begs the question of how much they needed to do anything to satisfy us when there's a parallel proceeding involving let's assume for the sake of you side comparison that novartis is asking for to say for every finding the board has at least compared to what the district court said and tell us why you came to a different one and if you look at page thirteen sixty five significantly different when there's different prior art cited where there are different experts that say different things that's a lot easier it is easier your honor but here the board went through all to explain what hears the witnesses and i think expert declaration expert testimony is a little different because sometimes credibility mixes up the extent to which they had a specific significant scientific basis for coming to their conclusions but what if it was what we typically think of as credibility like this guy started to sweat a cross examination and it was just apparent to me sitting there listening to him that he was lying based on his demeanor and the way he was twisting  it's really a traditional kind of credibility determination what if the district court had significant really really la aid on her conclusions in that regard in reaching the result here would the board have to sort of take note of that in any way shape or form or not i don't think the board would your honor because we have our own proceedings and congress has set them up and they are pretty much on the paper there are instances where the board can hear or  occurred found this expert's testimony not to be credible because whatever reason but we with our independent assessment given our technical backgrounds have read this reference in did it differently a least some sort of explanation right i don't know that they would be absolutely required to do that but i think that would be the better course and in this case they did look at theirs and there's no question that they looked at the noble district court decision and the watson federal circuit and district court decision for maybe it was the other one of the other briefs on the other side but i thought someone made the additional argument in response to the question i was posing that there is the ability under your proceedings to bring in live testimony is that am i wrong about that no is their ability there is there is a an ability and and the artist did not ask for it and so the end of one of the answers might be that if this guy if you saw the that would essentially that you would maybe for that in a motion and say in this case we do think testimony would be useful because of what happened in this court are you familiar with the power integrations case that's the one i don't think it's been cited by the parties here but that's one where this court i think there was a district court decision that interpreted claims one way and that and when it was before the board the board had a different interpretation and this court remanded for the board just to make sure that it was clear th court and what they said in their declarations now with respect to the art and rakhal that there were a couple of different references that were before the court but none of them were relied on by the board in reaching his decision and in fact none of them expressly say it was because of the demeanor of the witness but certainly when assessing credibility demeanor and the substance of what the experts testifying about is what the court will consider when it reaches a finding as to credibility to address the problem and then if you look at eighty eight the board's ultimate conclusion with respect to ensign saki is that the composer would have predicted that the transdermal formulation disclosed by fix it but i think the judge still maybe i misunderstood i thought she was asking about what you just said again which is a theoretical possibility and is that one which used by the board it's not it's the way that we tr between a theoretical susceptibility and an actual tech radiation problem thank you with that both sides the case