would render gross entirely inoperable for his intended purpose of making stable dispersions of fiber in water and the second area at the border areas a matter of law in failing to show that each and every limitation of the claims would have been taught or suggested by the cited references gross and long individually or taken together and the board failed to show that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in view of those references to achieve the cl experimental testing that if you took the modification was proposed here that was a modification which is taking everything about the gross reference and adjusting it only to reduce the reaction time gross satisfied to seventy two hours was the appropriate reaction time but the board would have us take from a different reaction take a two hour reaction time and use that in the gross records dr vance p catch fish he made h would result in no benefit so i don't i think the answer is yes they are there is so gross talks about a degree of high drama stress and he says what is inappropriate degree of hydrolysis i understand not only are you going to not get my stable job you cannot prevent any of that what you will and the benefits that are so gross doesn't speak to that point exactly what press does is he outlines for or is rest of this so if i understand the question i mean that the simple fact of the matter is growth is inoperable if you take this modification if you use two we have a process for making a very specific very specific process with very nearly clean process parameters in to make a very specific product that product is defined in terms of  q declaration including that the board acknowledges elsewhere that practicing the long modification of gross coast at the expense of the very objective but if you if you don't care about having a stable dispersions you care about other aspects of what point you to why why does it matter that you can't get a stable version without the l is gross because i don't think anyone would ever practice the gross method for any reason other than making a stable for modulus dispersion the very first sense of the detail description says the president mention pertains to a stable every case we could find in this court where there was an operability for the intended purpose of the priority and could not find one case where there was an obvious miss determination even in the face of a hypothetical example that strikes me as maybe falling into this category suppose that you or your invention is a mild illness on mild explosive something that will blow rocks off the percent of that mixture and that's just not in this prior art at all the gross reference to primary reference says eleven to fifteen percent is the amount of free sample sugar content and that's not just in abstract percent growth the same eleven to fifteen percent now one can't cure the end because one doesn't talk about the sugar content it's completely silent the facts aren't in dispute o the solicitor's point in their brief dad that it would occur exactly as you're saying but that's a newly minted argument from from council in their brief because that's not what the board says the board's only discussion of this issue board's decision page statement in the board simply says that the modifications would quote result in a lower free simple sugar content but that's not what the the first is that these in operability cases are useful construct in analyzing the obviousness of adding a component into a mechanical device which is what all the cases actually concern these the argument is less persuasive and secondly a related point that they that they make is when they're looking at the intended purpose they're looking at the applicant's intent and purpose by constantine the purpose and i think that's important here because their plans are not squeeze factual patterns into pre established pigeon holes when the ultimate good and that also is really about obviousness and i think that's exactly what our bonce against trying to do here by trying to sort of squeeze this factual says gross teaches eleven to fifteen percent and the fi shortening the reaction time one would expect to achieve a shorter they smaller percentage of simple sugars and in fact roast each with something important not only to do they teach that with five seventy two hours that you get a sugar content of about eleven to fifteen percent but actually early hydraulics it's all about you're basically taking these by remote hills and you're cutting them up and at some point if you put enough you end up with just a sugar solution so obviously if you plot less you'll end up with a much smaller percentage of simple sugars and i guess i just want to finish from last point although he didn't focus as much on water holding a test and although he did say that his plans are now way drafted to this particular properties of the record simply as an attempt to overcome at that time a rejection based on one for us alone so it's not really in the early draft at range it's simply an attempt by obama's case to try to overcome there's no doubt about that support for the board's filing for failure to open up in i d r i believe it was in that case finding that the references would render it unsuitable it's just merely an acknowledgment from this court that that is the standard and that standard is alive and well post k s r certainly on act and then i'd just like to say that the solicitor says the structure of the claims shows that these properties that dr has claimed somehow naturally results are inherently result from carrying this out and that's just not that's just not the case we know from gross that he sends out and give you a very large level of simple we know it's not the case that intrinsically produces it but more importantly the board did not make that argument that's council's argument that was not the board's argument in the one percent limitation that was added by and i meant it previously was five