directly answer your honor's question we know that because we can see that in the statute the statute sections one forty one and one thirty four speed to this court's jurisdiction as an article three court review at as opposed to this court having the authority to do that but only if the behest of certain parties would you consider both of those could be jurisdiction were i think i would i think congress w so that alone should be sufficient the second aspect of the complaint on the rehearing addition as i understood it was that they tendered an offer of proof that they could meet the standard of  not provisional application to show that it wasn't supported by the earlier a ten application and they said that's the one you've identified as the only one identified in the record they were going to start fishing around for other claims to  that especially when that threshold showing had even been made that there was a change at the troll the last fish market because there's a little unclear to me and straighten me out on this but they you're right as far as i can tell that the only part specifically argued claim one but they attached other claims to their submission and what help me understand the relationship between those other claims as far as their it wasn't any more specific than that that it was just this would happen to be one of the claims that was found somewhere in the record it wasn't there wasn't more no i mean they'd show that they cited documents where they make shelling expert reports in writing so why they are proceeding right but they didn't protracted and if it only point sort of doing that let me know but the first point is the big was incredibly superficial in terms of what the theory of prior work was i mean incredibly they listed five part references and then they said these are prior to one of two and a want to be and or want to appear and didn't specify any subsection with any of the five references and didn't care if their argument now we've had to respond you live it in pages and it's real like they're arguing that five different references so they didn't carry the day but by them lest there be any question about it because in just going back there was one of those things you read early date of the seven hundred four the pattern that's it that's being challenged the seven september two thousand right right ok good knowledge that date you never challenge it and mr gundry answered and it's a lot this long and you twenty three again if i understood counsel for petitioner correctly i thought he was saying that he didn't need to except for the four claims but they didn't need to do all that because they can trace back to  presented with in terms of what our response was we didn't give the waiver argument i don't believe here today but that we somehow wait we were very specific in the pattern orders response that they did nothing to challenge  twenty five he doesn't say as part of an i p o are you may consider what you want to do with other applications it's a far broader and more flexible allowance of authority what it says is the director can figure out how to handle all of this ok so it's not i don't think per se part of the petition it's not part of that you know it gets into component of the p t o to make this decision this ok we've got the inventors challenging their own patent and they've challenged it six different times in three different audiences how do we deal with this just a question presented and determine whether subsequent reexamination is duplicative and is fair given the time lapse and everything else they were the right body you know just something like if i was making would say that i would say yes that people should make that and they did that doesn't make it part of the i perceive i p r proceeding perception so i think when you look at it that light that clarifies that there's not appellate jurisdiction because the only case so they have their counter claims and this is the case where there is a really narrow a stoppel like an incredibly narrow stop or we start a petition from that it was denied it's what we can deal with it later we don't need to that day but with respect  time to all other applications requires a strained reading of the statute in precedent to address a misplaced concern about secret prior art it concerned simply no longer applies to these publicly available applications so fifty three all of the claims of family are supported under section one twelfth by the ten application the board in fairness should consider that evidence and then there was reiterate you know one example is plucked out of that but the thrust of our argument was not we want you to consider one example thruster argument is well now that we have a rule that requires this trial within a trial and now they're not talking about just  if i don't think that the nature of our argument was saying we're incorporating arguments by reference or seen there's evidence out there we want you to reopen the record to consider that i don't think that's a circumstance but if there are arguments that have been made before in came birders and doesn't mean that it's that it's open season to shift the burden of production to us we didn't need to say anything at all about the priority in our pointing to you can only get back to august two thousand line for that it's a week it's as if we didn't have to say in our upright paper you're not entitled to the earliest thing you might claim until they had come forward