think like to go through the analysis if i could direct your attention to the patent offices claim chart that they provided their brief he was on page fifteen in a sort of go through the in the auto business what we do there those would done by a firm that does these kind of tests they compared it to the fuel which is stated as they viewed it at the time to test for town and we we found that  advantage something like one to five or miles per gallon and probably most of the world as a psych a very big number but if you're in the auto industry know that every incremental improvement is a big deal usually takes millions of dollars worth of research but that's really not the argument that i want to emphasize today but i want to emphasize they've certainly kept that we are making a different product it's not the simple products of earner yeah you make that determination because it's well known and says that you can get high reliance triglycerides to make the fatty acids but make me quote the only part they then this was during the appeal on prosecution and then he makes this argument about well hydrolysis involves free radicals he made it up and you know can credit for doing that i don't think it was central to the to the getting this case allowed but we didn't want to mend the claims which maybe would have been a logical way to proceed we thought we were allowed for these two reasons so we went on so they use it as all they use these references for is to take judicial or sorry fish will notice that water hydro triglycerides we agree but the point is would you would you choose a triglyceride as your starting material for a bio diesel fuel when the referent i mean is one skill the i would say well yeah ok generate that can potentially generate fatty acids but do we want that other junk around i mean it's really contaminated from the perspective of earn suddenly if you use triglycerides you're injecting into that reaction which they need this pure form to have an official bio diesel fuel other compounds that the closer i pod so to speak tried so this is why i don't think it's obvious to do this we thought why is it not obvious is because you get can you get a very different product you basically get a mixture of a bunch of stuff which is what our invention is and what  directed to property such as viscosity poor point of that i know less about but i think these will be affected by what other stuff is in there and in this analysis we can you know another key part of the analysis which is in the claim chart provided by the office step see we're now adding in to the second intermediate reference are directed to combining similar reaction as well as producing similar products in both cases hide or else he'll esther's the board found that it would have been obvious for one it's kill me art to look at the teachings of produce the same types of products here  either method that was used for bio diesel one hundred or bio diesel ninety nine in submitting and therefore the board found that it could not rely on that data because there is no indication on whether or not bio diesel one hundred is commensurate in scope a claim one or whether bio diesel one hundred was compared to the closest prior to cracker which in that case the method the representative claim wanted to direct it to a method share and what's important is whether or not that method followed and because the board could not determine whether or not that method was followed here it was impossible to look at the data and see whether or not court's attention to page four of our our brief its appendix page number one seventy one no point does the method of the present invention call for conditions that lead only to the formation of free so that's statement that we're trying to convince the office that this reaction is more complicated than just something that produces only a fatty acid and one of the thing that maybe this is an important point mixed them up and that reference isn't really isn't directed at all to a fuel it's relief from making monomers for all american press not arguing that well you know i'm not emphasizing that they're unrelated arcus one thing is one other they they they teach what they teach and you know any chemists say ok this is what it says so we have to deal with with the thing the board also brought up well before i get there little uncomfortable with the emphasis on this unexpected result that was only one of our arguments and probably to me italy's compelling i point out our position  and it's our invention so that that's our assertion but again i don't want comfortable i don't view this as as the necessarily most important aspect of the invention at the board should consider whoever