give me a specific page to help me  as has has come forward there is also confusion about what is the actual language of the claims when the examiner rejected the claims on the one on one it was suggested that the one o want it had not been answered prior to the declaration of the in effect so it wasn't is your reading is that it was not a condition excepted by the office for proceeding with the interference well we've had to proceed  argued both your argument on noninterference based solely on an analysis of the any application including the white rap i amended claim language yes so you're arguing both that were following on that now still the rule that i quoted says that examination must be complete i mean this is very odd i can't recall any case that's come to the federal circuit from their first proceeding where we're not even sure subject matter here we think that there is a separate analysis regarding the interference proceeding with it should be declared you do not declare a new first proceeding you do not initiate court action so that you can then later at be a main question to ask and answer is there substantial evidence to support the board's finding that there was insufficient evidence submitted by chance that the claims of the six thirty seven application are not anticipated or rendered appeal actually reflects the lack of any evidence whatsoever submitted by jan in this regard chance brief and argument here makes this question appear slightly more complicated with regard to the unintended claims first and the amended claims but will submit that interview summary that was available to the board prior to the declaration of interference that limitation was referred to as critical to the condition of allowance so it's clear from the record that the court used the amended argument in the response to order to show cause submitted by chan to rebut the presumption that the declaration of interference created with regard to the amended claims but there was no evidence whatsoever to support that argument the july twenty fifth thing the board appropriately noted that there was no evidence to support a trainee argument on obviousness and without evidence it had no choice but to find that there was insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption created regard to having allowable subject matter the examiner indicated that there was a lot of the subject matter in the interview summary and then once the took place once the interference was declared the on the next step is to basically allow the claims or it goes back to the examiner at some point after the twenty five interference is complete and then at that time examiner could consider chance arguments on when i won again and reopen prosecution but that's really were lovers thinking about whether the window one issue which perhaps is has been developed route more thoroughly than when it was initially before the examiner and particularly because then the record of this declaration and the previous declaration is available to the examiner and so once the old twenty five interference is complete that whole record goes back to the examiner and the examiner can go back through chan's arguments and reconsider one o one even after it already considered one a wine and suggested the limitation that is now in claim twelve of the six thirty seven application it's telling in chan's appeal brief that that there is only citation to the one ninety seven patent claims to support the argument that the crystallized version of the compound as in the amended claim anticipated by the claims of the one ninety seven patent and there's no citation at all in the record in chance for it to support its argument on appeal that the crystallized version of the amended claims of the six thirty seven application is not obvious over the here if a party timely raised an area where i'm starting a party did not timely raise an issue such as patentability underwent a why that it could have raised during the previous interference it may not later raise that the third party submission once the prosecution is reopened is certainly still open in addition to that the ai has proceedings in a fags post graham reviews where chan or any other third party so the public interest is still served and they and the not closed on challenging the patent ability of these claims however based on interference of stoppel in this case the door is closed for a chance because chan had a chance in the ninety two interference but didn't timely raise the issue of pat  and then it obviously goes into the derivation proceedings which is somewhat different than an interference proceeding so the second interference that was declared by the board for lack of a better term was really to clean up what the patent office probably should have handled in the ninety two interference since the same subject matter and the same parties were involved so priority was never an issue and with that priority never being an issue interference and not in a timely fashion the board denied chain and the ability to file its motion and there was no one because it waited almost a year and a half after the role of the decision issued to request authorisation to file that no argument either with regard to the order to show cause that the board issued with the application and our stance stoffel by the board in fact chand completely ignores that argument but it was correctly applied by the board w so you argue priority then if you lose one priority perhaps your only recourse is to challenge the entire subject matter of the interference so perhaps we have record and the the inequity will as a result of the a stop the one ninety seven pattern which is attacked in the second interference those claims were in fact pounded at the time of the first interference of that distinguishes this case and the result of the first interference was that those two patents would be involved and we would keep the one ninety seven path so there's no the stop will be because there is no issue now that wasn't already track so that all the issue is whether you waive the whole thing that's the issue well i would submit to the court that than perhaps the next wave of want to want cases is going to be for example licensee a stop where someone has taken a and your answer was you use the word wave as in there's going to be a wave of cases that's not enough no i don't think we have waited an ability in oregon and i don't i don't think we are precluded from arguing that the lack of i believe the claims means that the proceedings should not continue but i think it does it does does not merit be swept up with a stop of priority of other types of waves and as i saw it it was because having decided priority that as far as the board was concerned that was what the rule of the interference was about i know that is supposed to review patentability but here both sides had already been held to have patentable subject matter