that's where he conductor his reaction going to if anything tells the reader that if you don't have p c a which is his stop there is no reason to have dca d c is only there depress the melting point and as i started out and i apologize to her for i started jumping into the middle of this issue but the the the there this really gives a central issue their witness and why the crediting there were six but the fact is there was actually no disagreement because our witness provided extensive testimony on one a melting point depressant yes and why that's different from  and they can read at dr gribble right i mean my i know your view is that this is wrong i just want to know if i'm reading what the board said correctly i think you're you're you've read what the board said correctly my point but i also what wish to make the point that there is no substantial evidence that they work or their expert agreed with your expert or they both wrong i don't know what you said there was no disagreement and most recently an intellectual venture erikson vs intellectual ventures that women expert opinion is the conclusory opinion that is inconsistent with the record inconsistent with prior art evidence based on the expert testimony and well i would if i might just comment though you did refer to the fact that they they stated that they were giving more credibility to the expert who testified for adama that was exactly the same issue that was present in the erickson vs intellectual ventures case and the court said in that case that the we do disagree with them then that doesn't resolve the case but it's certainly bears on the situ but i think want to point out to you in that levy let me take you back to my initial question reaction medium there and it is only modified by adding small amounts of dca or d c m to depress its melting point and  common reaction or one of the most common organic reactions aren't most commonly used with m c p p s a which was the oxygen there and there was no motivation to make this change if i just finish my one point on the credibility point this was exactly the same issue in the ericsson vs intellectual ventures case the court there found that the expert opinion was contrary to the evidence and the board said that that they work crediting the other side's expert and concluded that x eriksson's expert lack credibility this court dismissed that argument or that holding by the board saying this is not an issue of credibility is an issue of technology and the same is true here just because dr grip will set a melting point depressant is the same thing as a solvent doesn't make it so he's trying doing anything and just seems to me that given that threat it's kind of hard to parse through the pieces of prior art and not say well there's enough here but the the question here i would submit your honor is not claim scope this argument comes across almost like an inherent anticipation argument you're saying if there was motivation to substitute dca for d c m an e p one seventeen then the e p one seventeen would produce results that fall within the scope of a claim that's like an inherent anticipation argument that this is not an anticipation  this is an obvious mis case and so the question is would someone have been motivated to make that change in the first place and we argue that they wouldn't particularly they wouldn't in view of the teaching away by the guard a reference to the garda reference states about as plainly as can be stated that dca is a poor medium for oxidation and that its only purpose is to depress a melting point well no but that was the point i was making that there is no dispute that this was an advance in the are that you can practice this claim and get the very excellent results that are that's why we're fighting over it the the point here is why would you make a substitution into another claim if there was nothing to tell you that your results are going to be better or worse or the same which the board as much as at knowledge in there i think  the board had no evidence as to how a post would have understood that language at the time of the invention and i also want to mention that the claim construction was legal air there the morning runners may have pleased the court the problem we have here is that and chemical has a very broad claim as judge process pointed out it doesn't say what any of these elements do in this reaction it takes a standard process for making fifty mil a well known product and look for an alternative they claimed several elements are just thrown into a pot why would somebody have done well yes why don't we look at what the motivation to combine means here your honor the motivation here is the make an alternative it wasn't to make it improve product there's no evidence here that there was any improvement in this product or in this process there were a number of patents that are still set forth in the background of the five five nine patent issue everyone was looking in that time for an alternative process to i to avoid other patent the processes and make a standard insecticide on its heparin so what they were seeking was not an improved product but simply an alternative the motivation to combine to make the alternative about the claim language but the point which doesn't say what he says it's either in his brief or in his argument it says you start with a sulfite precursor and  you have to make a liquid vats the make this product that's that's what apparently it's doing it could be a solvent it could be a melting point the press and whatever that means in garda they're both refer to solve things a all of those are accidents they're all paresi that's one would easily interchange one for the other if you're looking for an alternative process to make peppermill and the only other part of the claim the disclaimer so called in the last part of the claim is of no benefit at all their expert witness dr curran testified that no one has ever seen p c p i didn't even know what it is there was no there was no express this of all there was nothing in the trial prosecution history there was nothing else in the specifications there's no mention of it in the claims in fact they they took the opportunity and specific to be more specific to state exactly what each of these elements did what their percentages were temperatures or speed of email or some other process characteristics then maybe they would have had a more specific way which would have withstood which that scrutiny but they did not try to claim it broadly they read into that difficulty council is arguing here about why you should not pay any attention to dr ripples testimony frankly that argument i don't recall ever saying that in his brief and the cases even is relying on or not cited in the brief and i don't think that the court should pay attention to an argument which was not made in the  zimmerman started out by talking about others that were involved in the prior art we pointed out in our brief there were five or six other or five other research groups who are trying testify clearly that effect and adama presented no evidence whatsoever on how a post would have understood that future in a way statement at the time of the invention the the motivation to make it it's not enough that something just be equal an orc interchangeable and this court has held that very plainly in the beldam vs architect case in the personal web texts case there has to be some reason to motivate you to make this change why would you change from the most common preferred solvent use for him c p b a reactions to something completely different unless you had some reason to expect you are going to get a better result this is not a matter of claim construction this is a matter of motivation was there a motivation if i can just go back to the last point mr zimmerman made he said that patent is that m c p v a is un satisfactory mr zevon and the board characterize that as a general criticism but it was only general criticism they sent it's un satisfactory because im but they didn't point to any evidence in the record and i'm jumping around a little bit going back to this claim construction quite the claim construction that the patent office