get to the key issue which is called in construction in this case because that's where the fundamental abuse of discretion came from that's an error and we do have a market in this case injuring more but you're in jail so i'd like to actually just walk solidly in it's difficult to read the definition is that way if for no other reason because it excludes mean exclusive in the and there's nothing in there in the specification or the prosecution history that says any d p h depend on so that's a new term as it is applied to carry that's not in the specification t talks about is activity and see this power sucking about what was the standard say at that time for carry it with look at example to it so this is the test the normal characterization of a character that afaik which is what is called out in this pattern doesn't tell you anything about what it prefers because it doesn't say i put  and we have expert testimony on this i appreciate we did and where do we find expert testimony saying what you're saying we're in this restaurant we find the expert testimony that says the same thing that you i think that's certainly correct but i think it's also correct that we need to read a patent specification for what it teaches what about cleaning their prescript but that isn't written description support i believe it is written descriptions support because the patent tells you what you want to do is knock out the side reaction so you get more combine to that why isn't there i recognize there might be some difficulties with absolute anticipation but there are enough there for at least  well first of all your honor this record is not part of this i understand that but it isn't but we're talking about a substantial question of invalidity yes we have i'm i'm suggesting there's an awful lot of prior art that is all over the area here is there enough for a substantial question know you're under let's suppose oh if you'd like me to address obviousness i will do that in my short time rather than the anticipation and they they said well i can guess that this is the path they don't show that there is a pathway and the evidence of record also is and this is from dr stephanopoulos gee those expert motivation nobody was looking for it nobody thought about it beauty mix came up with it dupont came up with it but what i am also saying is those references all those are merely references from you get a balancing test and discretion on the part of the court that is correct your honor but we have to do that based on the record and what the district court says because we are now looking to see whether the district court code for an answer and then he says i'm great in the beginning and i want to speculate and he uses the word they use the word speculate about what this enzyme might do and points to the i would remind the court that when you engage in recombinant engineering you can be turning off and sometimes these things the way this works is you have d n a but for this pathway to work you need the specification where there is an explicit definitional section as calling for an a d p h dependent carians one and it did so for a number of reasons one there was the word slowly may or may not be the best choice of words additional chords construction what it clearly means is dependency strong preference and dependency and that is the correct definition as we see in that specification that's not the case the enzyme is actually tested in that paper which is a one four seven five one at two zero eight nine was from a different bacteria not found in pockets l e r l the youngest so it's a different  analogous art question i'm very happy to and then address as well as an army says when you start recombining these enzymes you can turn them off as well as turn them on right can you it he describes the three common engineering of a cell so this is this is something that he is saying happens in a cell and he draws all the various pathways by which you can get to higher alcohols like i  zero nine nine eight zero c there's a general section that says you might want to delete genes here or there doesn't say which ones and there's a reference to an article that's not going to work for you by reference which doesn't deal with pvc deletion in this context at all the district court was right to credit doctors as testimony on this point and her opinion is very careful in these words we have another reason for knowing that they didn't possess the invention which is outside the four corners of the patent but still very relevant and described explicitly so when they when they ultimately came into possession of that invention we believe after reading the g will publish applications i think we represent briefs on the subject they put it in a specification that has a detail specification this is a case where if you look at the specification when they want to say dependence they did no harm and they did and they did not say that for carryons on your own so we are reading dependence into  definition word does not exist that is what the district court did and you don't go ahead and construe this patent in light of what gigo does the fact of the matter is the evidence to show the public the public p h preference for another is on its use that line so we are changing the definition that's in the past wrong dr stephanopoulos and i can't go through the whole record it is all cited for you repeatedly so it depends on the conditions that in that the even in his view of the natural pathway which has never been proven he said sometimes in my work sometimes it might not work it might be all turned on it might not be all turned on what we know from dr cleveland  in california how did you get a pen where they're not together and that's what the evidence of record is so your honour's it's nice to go ahead and look at which even does and says boy maybe it should be any d h dependent and eighty ph dependent three years later five years later what people want to call these things but the fact of the matter is that in this kind in this specification for kerry it does