which would in fact cover the infringing product there that's correct and that's a very very critical admission by the other side that it doesn't cover the negative in interim or long which is the one depicted and there's a reason for that and the reason is that the fourteen and would understand that that's one way to indicate a risk to make that well yes and not just in the art in general but in this specific pattern that's exactly the way i just can usually stick for a minute just to plain plain language receiving i believe that's correct there's no way even though it doesn't say it anywhere and it doesn't give percentages or ratios any where you think just the absence of a whole or light data or whatever if what would teach somebody that that's the reason we're not providing that data is because we don't have it for ricin it's right exactly and that's one reason but also when you look at the subsequent sub examples you can see that when they break one on one up you get equal amounts of the two you can have a mixer that isn't equal amount sure but you have to created out of the two constituents these things are made naturally and that's the way they exist because in nature the two enantiomers generally insist in fifty fifty mixtures unless you take special steps to separate  change correct i believe that's correct but that would be inconsistent with the intrinsic evidence and i have more intrinsic evidence if i can get to them so counted in columns thirty one and thirty two the patent makes clear that compounds one hundred to one hundred three one o objects to the towns of this invention one they have anti psychotic activity two they have loose side you're totally losing me i think you're going through a really fast and i don't understand what i'm supposed to take away from column thirty one and thirty two which tells me that claim fourteen is limited to or we see mixture only and does not include a product that is sold using exclusively the negative  well the issue there your honor is i think you are accepting the argument that somehow this claim was intended to cover the commercial product which wasn't even known at the time and we have to go on the intrinsic evidence now which has i'm not assuming anything i stand here and argue to me that a statute means x and if i don't agree or if i think it means y guess what it means why i don't have to accept some concession on a question of law so i'm trying to figure out what this means all right so let me back  sounds as if you're saying because it's an express definition just in the sense i think that's fair i think that's fair it's labeled want to want and then the specification in columns thirty one and thirty to show that it's separated and then there that the in the activity and reduce side effects tables five and six only count down the chills up there is one hundred one that's the recent mixter count on one hundred five appears only in table two so it's a little bit of data on activity but not a lot and there's no data on the reduce side effects and notably count down one hundred four which is the mirror image of want to fight doesn't appear in any of the table so there's no teaching that somehow claim one zero point fourteen which is final history is entirely consistent they cancelled all the regional claims and added some new claims it were faced with restriction requirements the examiner said too many different inventions narrowed down in  take but it's either this way or that way so there are only two combinations those two carbons have only one each of them has only one thing that can be on there and so it's either this way or that way and the other one has to be the other one so it's good afternoon me please the court my first point is that the clearly erroneous standard applies in my opponents have not and cannot overcome that standard when you consider everything that my opponent  specification that he's relying on to exclude the negative in manchester what i heard him to be saying was that the you know the intrinsic evidence supports a construction that would cover both the negative  me that quite the plain meaning of claim fourteen to a skilled artist and as assessed by the district court was a negative enantiomer in this district court absolutely eroded in the construction he adopted to include everything negative positive racine make specification teaches us that claim fourteen is directed to a genus of compounds so if you look for example at at claim fourteen and just look at looking at that picture what does it associate it with when my opponents agree that's associated with compound number one o five degree greta that in their brief at page thirteen and then where do you see compound want to it's in the context of example what in example one talks about a a through example one which in on column thirty two and so the introduction to this this picture that's depicted here is the structure that's associate it with all of opponents argue is an illogical one because it would exclude the prefer an environment that they say is literally pictured in mclean and the only reason that they that they get there is because again they look at the claim that's inconsistent with grief because they certainly say in their in their brief before this court at page nine they recognize that there's a difference between compound want to one indeed fourteen and they say the only difference between compound one  if that's not how plane construction works certainly want one is featured it's among the preferred one of the preferred environments in the pattern but you don't read that limitation in a invite him into the claim particularly when we have a situation just look at claim fourteen again you don't have to be an organic chemist to figure out that it actually claims a genius it talks about it amid compound of a certain formula or an acid addition salt there are that's at least two  because it certainly is a mixture but it again if you look at the claim and you understand that it does the pick in a mantra their construction can't can't be right because they're trying to exclude that particular an answer and i submit again it is foundational to their argument if they do argue in their briefs and i know that they've only said part of their argument here that you are going in the reset they're relying upon it's forensic evidence that's that's how they get you actually limiting the finding the district court made were specific to the organic chemistry book and the other organic chemistry book that doesn't it doesn't convert his claim construction in light of this  i certainly agree that that what the district court did applies to those particular facts the book excerpts but that's foundational to their argument they never get to receive a mixture otherwise and if you also look district court looked at in terms of coming out with its instruction why do we need to resolve that issue if i finding that this claim at least includes the negative enantiomer resolve actually looking at what a person of origin is still new york would understand it would encompass all of these other things and that's the same thing that the defendants understood before they got in this litigation each of the three defendants i meant include all has having adopted law or logic at all well you're honor and i'm and i'm not saying the district court limited its analysis to do so the subject that's including example one what i'm saying is the district court looked at the intrinsic evidence discredit with them is if we get to it a picture it is an example of one right next example one an example one dash a production of couple number one a one so it doesn't say it's reading example want they would understand the only difference between the picture at the bottom of column thirty is the h c l label on the far end which means salt and claim fourteen includes the negative which this is incorrect sure all the negative  salts so this is a picture of what's in claim fourteen i don't understand your argument that it's not imam arguing that that the picture in claim fourteen is associated with the example they want and i'm ar it especially in a case like this where there apparently are many things we didn't everything no that's not my my view your honor but this is a situation where you have a preferred embodiment that specifically depicted in clean fourteen so knows that they're so she with each other if you look at the descriptions on count thirty one thirty two you see that all of the other compounds compounds one of the two important compound one of five they're all described in the context of compound number one  begins practical in presently preferred environments of invention are illustratively shown in the following examples i thank you i think you answered my question that i had with your answer about how the very different so literally when you look at plain fourteen the plain meaning of it to be shows the minus an answer and then you're informed by the specifications specification of forgery this picture is associated with example one which is a sub it simply to show that the way the intrinsic evidence here screams i guess intrinsic of this doesn't scream it strongly states indicates that the formula in claim fourteen is compound one on one i'm sorry ten minutes you don't need i'm on the whole i'm a saul and i guess one of the things that bothered me about this case was that you submitted expert declaration along with court cherry plot to and the either of those two supporting your argument didn't consider any of the rest to come so so even if it's not clearly erroneous on those first two i guess given how much you might have noticed i am struggling to understand the technology and having read his opinion and having seen as it sort of took the ten thousand approach level to the technology i'm just wondering i've never seen it happen before but whether this isn't a case where we  and tell him the supreme court said in tevar extrinsic evidence can be used to help under for inform your understanding of the technology i would like to know i did not dig them up because they're not really relevant for peel and i'd like to know what all those other things you cited say about what the plain meaning to a skilled artist and a con fourteen is if you know what you're both arguing the specifications supports you and i will flip a coin we don't so this seems like the kind case a little difference admit a little change on whether it's in or out you can use it as a shorthand and that's the only reason it was to give the district court some comfort that this result which we say is dictated by the intrinsic evidence both the specification and fil it makes sure that we three species that would be a genius especially the way they've constructed because i think it's your honor noted it's a large number because it's essentially infinite depending on how finally you want to divide that you know one hundred percent specific pound that is your point one for example is an example in that passage they like from column for that says you know if that passage actually says the m r i compound one is brought to paraphrase that formula appears including one one and one that would undermine your argument it would but it also there are other ways of climate where you could have made this clear they could have said you know this compound it's mirror image you know mixers there are it's very simple of i believe that reference is to the group of claims they cancel all the original claims and then just before these restriction requirements they added a whole group of claims and i believe they're referring to