turn to one of your arguments and that is the claim language and individual with at least one of you know to nicol fibrosis and corporal tissue fibrosis in your work found construed as an individual actually having cannot hydrocephalus now when the board actually determined that that should be construed as required merely an individual that has symptoms that may be associated with people on both the such our criticism of that construction is that it goes against a meeting of the claims that is very clear from the language of those claims that is not something that we have wa that the board found the niner three claim claims to be obvious is largely the result of unreasonable claim constructions that altered what the claimed invention it's the board effectively reasonable interpretation standard that applied three part here proceeding that was unreasonable in refusing to give patentable weight to the arresting or regressing element the board ignored a ing the other kind elements because the claims method otherwise specifies only a maximum dosage and a minimum treatment duration efficacy is not certain so without that arresting or egressi turning back to that limitation that an individual has at least one of the p not to nibble fibrosis and cripple tissue fibrosis the board construe that element to require merely that an individual have symptoms that may be would occur at most disclose whatever diagnostic daily or non daily routine they have they disclose treating e t in elderly patients or treating  but who would have benefited from that their appeal now properly construed the limitation requires that an individual have to nickel for corporal fibrosis and that the fibrosis be clinically significant ok let's hear from the other side and we'll come back to this in rebuttal could i just ask one quick question if you had a third issue that you alluded to at the beginning and i missed it what was your third findings that the changes even under their findings under their claim constructions likewise their arguments argue alternative information from records b is not the same thing as when it teaches this earth or scoliosis thing that that is teaching a fibrosis and therefore it discloses so the board does say multiple times you're i think you're reading from that the the way the board construed an individual with least one of the two forms of penal fibrosis is as someone who has but that's not really an accurate definition of someone with penal fibrosis is that it may be an accurate definition with respect to some people who have a d but not all you would agree that it's correct with respect  with you would agree with that proposition right that not all of the patients have fibrosis and therefore if you define if a product patients by saying there are people by saying they are the entire universe of people that have a and if you define people with pneumonia as people with a cough then that would be wrong and i think that's that's very simple minded way that they say it but it seems to me that's what the board are saying on page eight you may be able to explain why that's not something that's the way that two senate segment the boids opinion looks to me if you read that out of context of the rest of the opinion i can see how you read it that way arriva but if you read it that doesn't mean that these people are necessarily having what you want to minimize the development of what you want to treat one that already exists i appreciate your honor and then on twenty work or do you months and so of course it doesn't literally see forty five days but it was understood to be a long term if not on lifetime condition absent some change to your your body and therefore if you treat it as long as the patient error in finding that rest to regress is an inherent step of process that results from the step there's only one thing you do you only give a pill and the rest to regress happens whether or whether because the only teaching in the patent is that if you do with this result happens you have to take that as a mission you read it that way and it's reinforced by the district court case where the said it will result in the arrest here with me which is my heart but my recollection is that it's a chart that's says something like less than thirty percent thirty to seventy percent are seventy percent or more and that how is it that teaches daily when it's reporting the results clearly of patient compliance at less than one hundred percent when in fact the charges they actually say one hundred percent and are on it so there's no evidence that any of the participants in that eight or twelve week study actually were in fact administering the do understand and there's no doubt that some of these like the twelve in the six weeks study a month or see and then again i'm having concerns about the eight or twelve week study it would occur because they're clearly not daily like there are five days a week on week days but not weekends or beach five six o nine the preferred treatment is daily as long as the patient suffers and so there's a preferred treatment of treating a patient daily that's what would have her preferred for example six seems to be a building block of how they got to that they found that if you took it thirty percent of every day you got some improvement if you took it sixty percent of every day you got more improvement in the ticket seventy or more percent of the day you get more improvement and that led to the conclusion that we should instruct people to take it every counsel made it an as needed study and that instruction to take not more than once daily simply meant if you have an opportunity to how much sexual intercourse more than once when you were not allowed about once per twenty four hours and that's a that's a pretty normal definition of daily but what it doesn't give you is how many times and for how long right so daily is not a generation well it says more preferably one time for twenty four hours so a day it gives you it doesn't give you duration but it does tell you once a day it seems to me it right but i think if you look further in w look at example six it's clear that the study subjects in that example are not taking it consistently every single day right so daily is not a teaching of how many times and for how long it simply the in and that's crucial because whitaker also indicates that you can have intermittent daily longer simply not relevant to that what his testimony concerned was non pharmaceutical intervention like diet like exercise like quitting smoking and how long that might take to resolve he sometimes that doesn't cast any light on