definite permanent idea of the complete and operative invention now you're going to emphasize that dr frasier had a definite and permanent idea they're going to say yeah but it wasn't the complete an operative invention but in a way that's that's the way this kind of breaks down they're going to focus on one half and you're going to focus on the other half  a test that showed it works at the time he had the definite permanent idea or not and how then would it be a complete and operative invention hope there was not a reasonable expectation for the goal of virus like particles of separate so that there would be achieved based on the small irregularly shaped particles disclosed in the australian application or any was that there be a test is that right that's right i agree i don't see that in the board's opinion as i read the board's opinion what the board said was he hadn't shown this reasonable expectation because he hadn't made particles it seem like the point who's trying to do and indeed supported further support for that is that he didn't show any test that had established that fact i don't read read the boarders to me at is clearly drawn a distinction between those two situations in the workplace to it seemed to me that the board was talking about reduction in practice not conception but the  problem that may have been troubling the board is that we do have cases would say that conception reduction practice go together and they didn't phrase it that way and  does it does it just as it stands does it describe something that is complete and works in fact like i made it work didn't invent it he did exactly the right thing yes so the only thing that you seem to be complaining about and that's what was in the australian that's the australian filing so you seem to be saying because dr frazier had some impurities in this test tubes or whatever it was that threw him off so that he didn't produce australia had a somehow affected his his experimental device he didn't actually do it but he taught the world how to do it didn't it why isn't that a definite and permanent idea of a complete an operative interesting lee even the board says this goes beyond america hope this is a great hope race so it's already beyond the the disqualifying factor and burroughs he had more than a great hopi actually had the thing it now he didn't do it himself who knows dirty test tubes you know whatever it was that caused him to come up with the wild type rather than the the proper v l p we don't know but he is not required by the for the law of interference is that the first to conceive who is diligent to reduce your practice or whatever that works is the first inventor and then we have all of the complications conflicts technology biotech where we have some cases which say yes but you don't really have a conception unless you do it because the science is so complicated and then we have every point of degree along the line which determines where the completeness of the concept in the first place perhaps the skill of the inventor as well here we also have the australian patent application which shows at this inventor was sufficiently confident to actually go on record here we have the paper given it a scientific meeting i don't know if that report was cited in the prosecution of the legal application or not whether it was prior art we haven't discussed the issue of your evasion although it's well covered in the briefs but these are complex issues but i think what we need to have very much in mind is that we're talking about in a disappearance and in my mind the interference indeed draws a distinction what he was in possession of the idea he just didn't do it well the thing is that he required to do it he went no one's going to question that he is method is exactly what produced the seattle conference schlegel him self says he went back and changed the way he was doing things he did something different thereafter he wasn't doing this he learned from frazier the father of all this and he goes back and does a different producers protein that had it correct plucked from everything had an improvement but is not talking about improvement this is an interference in which she goes back to the threshold of the concept and says i brother i think our presiding judges put our finger on the problem and that is in a complex area conception often colds and the reduction to practice why isn't that the case here