some other reference souter was talking with respect to souders on this song right right but i think what i'm trying to figure out is is this so hard and fast rule i don't do the correction then all the sudden you know any attempt to translate area percent to eight percent is going to be so unreliable that if it is created twenty percent or was for us you being more observation rasiah tell you to do in both of those references and what's interesting is the board refuses to find that claim to which requires an eighty eight percent twenty percent of the enough to at least eighty percent how is eighty to eighty percent close enough to seventy five percent the board is and explain why that delta is adequate and i think that  much greater sense of peace of mind the seventy five percent or higher value was met by that he two percent calculated number compared to claim that's calling for eighty percent higher or higher or that maybe it was just mentioned three to five percent are right right and there is no discussion of why three to five percent error in this case would be it's more likely as opposed to the upper end of twenty percent particularly when we simply don't have the data on what equipment craigie and again client does not go through that analysis as to why the error is expected to be in the lower end of the range as opposed to the error with respect to dundee again we think the wrong conception analysis was applied to long and a lot of this circuit says here and there there is a need to attach special significance it is experimental results he only needs to appreciate the about a simultaneous conception of reduction in practice whereas consumption probably doesn't require some proof of conception that it works for its intended purpose reduction a practice that is a requirement acceptable and we think that's clear air particularly when you're talking about inherent anticipation this is not something that is within the four corners of crack you have to look outside of  the board heard his testimony they evaluated all these different critiques and they found that his testimony credible so they found that it was perfectly reasonable in this arc take these figures that were expressed in g c area for sense and use relative calculations he has a table of those results and the results are very consistent and the board found that that is persuasive evidence that when one uses relative response factors as is perfectly appropriate in this art one gets values that are even if one were to change these relative response factors by twenty percent that one would get a value below seventy five percent so that's one point the other point which i think is really critically important is that that reference is not talking minus twenty percent of the observed values i mean i say what i understand this to mean and you please correct me those values are atomic or molecular cross sections they're not ratios they're not carefully considered and found kind of persuasive interpret the claims but they found that some well the problem here was they presented only one witness they decided to put their entire conception case on the inventor they have no expert testimony no other fact witness and as a result of that they had cases better than i it surprising that there would be a doctor that says an inventor who happens to be a professional in the field is not qualified without further corroboration to say that i b m is a computer company or whatever it is is is in the business of doing p c m materials or whatever it was as opposed to i did this experiment they never came forth with any other testimony except in there and that was the fundamental problem that the board had with their case and no other evidence other than the parties on assertions and that's where proper ration comes into play  understood them showed the existence of the invention that for twenty one f thirty and sixty five the board say that president that's exactly the problem here there's no evidence showing that he contemporary sleep evaluated interpreted any test results problem here his testimony in two thousand and fourteen that he appreciated that he had made a high even carbon number composition he'd be dated back to the time period here where they were making essentially the diesel fuel i also want to know the word understood for example the to appreciate the legal panel bill claims but the order never did that here they did not require in finding the issue of legal pad ability and again i case multiple witnesses testifying was more than adequate evidence and they don't have  you thank you very much acceptable under the cases that we cite in our papers no more you can look at the circumstances surrounding all of the at it there's a case that says it would be the corroborate that i'm a person of skill and you aren't can look at that she's c f id which is a standard technique for giving a quantitative measure of the weight percent of a compound and see that of you compare for example the matter granted they're sitting back to him they look the same one of the exhibits at the board did it and then exhibit twenty thirteen i just want to point out twenty thirteen has essentially the same e mails that tash those dramatic grants so again between twenty eleven and twenty fifty eight you see mr f r is instruction he's communicating his ideas to a third party how to do the process what to look for and keep keep sending me data keep sending it and we believe i want to keep seeing it to show that twenty thirteen which was not it and twenty fifty eight which which was