like to start st by addressing standing in the case and then i will turn to the merits thank you are pfizer has standing in this case and to bring this appeal pfizer has suffered an injury in fact because there's a substantial risk that tew guy will bring an action for patent infringement for a product that pfizer launched earlier this year but to have to establish standing at the time you tech and its parent company roche who also controls chu guy at the time the appeal was initiated that patent dispute was ongoing and ultimately pfizer initiated the appeal pfizer had good reason or pfizer had no reason to believe the standing was not self evident what smithing and seems to me in any information about jew guy obviously knew that the product was involved here because chu guy in the record below identified janetta tech as a real party in interest so it was self evident to the parties here that there was a product at issue in this case at the time of the appeal your honor product is made using protein chromatography and that is the method for pure find protein that's described and cleaned in the patent issue in this case pfizer and pfizer settled with gin and tekken roche and as i mentioned chu guy neither chu guy nor the patents at issue here were included in that settlement and hsu guys free to assert those patents even today this injury in fact that is that there's a substantial risk that you guys will bring an action for infringement is further compound id by the turning to the merits of the case unless unless the court has any other questions on standing i'd like to turn to the merits of the case on the merits the board incorrectly board construed the malaria limitation as the over all lie already of the solution and not of any particular psychology within the solution the the final written decision blower also refers to this as the total sol you or total larry and pfizer's position is that the board's construction is inconsistent with the intrinsic gavin's for several several reasons st the specification nowhere describes or calculates the overall now larry for either the acidic equals solutions described in the specification or the neutralized l u a described in the specification rather than by the total malaria construction that the that the board adopted but i mean i know i know sergey referring us to the intrinsic record of the specification prosecution history but it seems to me that the plain language of the claims seems to refer to a concentration of the solution as a whole not a single solid i think that's pretty persuasive unsupported and that's the board's claim construction here i'd also just sort of you could address that but also the fact that you had a shift in claim construction right then changing their position on the correct clinton construction  has adopted is is it's just on workable because it requires knowledge of how the particular solution was prepared as you can imagine these solutions are prepared different you know different fashions and they often contain unknowable and identified and identifiable sol units in the solution so it's really not it's it's a construction it's a construction that while the clean says solution it's looking looking at the plain language alone and saying that you have to look at all known and in the solution is just an unworkable construction and that's and that's bad that's supported that our position is supported by the fact that when you look at the specification for example when you look at the acidic equally solutions that the patent describes it it follows exactly the the approach that shadow found the specification identifies the solutions by made and that's that simply goes beyond the board's construction and beyond the specification and more important most importantly the european to guy in the european patent office characterized the shade of reference and finish your honor and reserve the rest of time for a bottle let me ask you a quick question about and this is go to the anticipation question it is correct is it not that before the board at least until you got and there on the other side have an opportunity to respond isn't that problematic for you for us to reach that issue on appeal your honor re believe the other side did have the opportunity to respond the up to you to make the argument they don't why are they how are they on notice that you're making an inherent the argument not withstanding that the evidence that you're now using may have already been in the record  met so the parents the issue takes takes less or priority in our view than the fact that she will express the anticipate the claim under either our construction or the court's construction how  declaration which which addressed those calculations and said that in addition to the four methods that our petitioners expert provided there was an additional fifty method in which patent owners experts said was p really didn't mean it but if we're supposed to conclude that it was self evident we take it as a given that you identify them as a real party and interest in your case your honor we did identify them as real party interest that is not sufficient to email service address in this petition and that as a result of that we identified gentex because they sell protection that in the face of that makes pfizer standing with injury in fact your self evident i think is not supported by the records sued and they don't explain why it's their burden to show that their actions are likely to cause a suit not that someone may bring a suit anyone can assert may bring a suit and that removes article three as as the floor of the discord is confirmed  representation but i think again that that's the kind of thing that would remove article three of the floor of every appellee were asked well when you would you come not to sue standing here today that could be asked by consumer watchdog  by all the accounts that have been found not to have standing here that and then i look at the board decision and what when i read the board the station i see them saying he slips service to the normal unusual fandor in the language that they use really what would they result in and and that is not the situation we have here here we are looking at for example the acidic aqueous solution that's not the result of two things that are known and all of a sudden about what would be known to a person of steel is available if it's an attempt to fill a gap in what is disclose in stable well what but let's suppose hypothetically that we were just in flows of the normal usual standard does  readily available and reasonable choice to a person of ordinary skill in the arts and the the board not read of that that's not the same as normal unusual so you're right i'm not sure there's a meaningful difference there  the test is not what is the most popular choice it's like saying because chocolate star brain vanilla are the most popular choices that chocolate chip is not a reasonable choice is not normal that's that's really the analysis we're getting from dr presbyterian and pfizer what the testimony here shows is that this was a readily available choice and dr kramer explained the reason a person of ordinary skill would use this choice based use your honor i'm not sure that again that that that the normal unusual language which is to talk about what occurs when there's not explicit disclosure of the result ry sodium to treat option that dr kramer testified about were expressly considered and rejected by the board so to his effort to show that it was somehow not normal think one other point in response to the comment earlier about the timing of expert questions we did not have an opportunity to submit an expert declaration after they put in their reply position on inherently and  improper unless there are further questions i'm happy to turn my time back to the court colleagues thank anticipation by the shade of a reference if if the court would look to pages sixteen dollars seventeen cents of the final written decision what you'll see is that the final written decision required more from its own cl shall i don't see that shade will contains enough information to make that determination setting but just by itself thank you ron by itself there's nothing in shameful to lead an artist in our experts came with four methods to show how the shadows buffer could be made the conventional method and in fact showed that methods three and four were the most conventional methods used in the industry and even dr kramer ch five million dollars solution that contains all citrate and this is only buttressed by the fact that even the other methods the other two methods that dr presby seen testified yes they show malaria the higher but in both those sheetal was anything other than twenty five million dollars and at best and there's certainly no evidence to show that an artisan would make that buffer to be that buffer that could be made over one hundred million dollars so we think we think there's a strong case for express anticipation here because shade will says it's a twenty five dollars millimeter solution and it's citrine full stop and that's