questions on on tangency alley and i understand there is some skepticism with respect to the position that we and hospital advance let me offer a couple of brief additional thoughts in response to someone in washington from the court and then i'll turn to the other two  generality wouldn't focusing as completely as you do on the limits of language collapse the tangential relation exception into the foreseeability well i don't think so just the dice odium every time and judge more with respect to the question the us about isn't talking about the toxicity of a promise of pema truck said when it's talking about the toxicity issue what it's talking about is actually the prior and that makes this case like felix where there was a reference to other structure in the court said look that means that you know the gasket you can't see the gasket was tangential or like  merely tangential because it had nothing to do with the reason for cutting back respectfully just laurie if you take that to its logical conclusion then that means in every single case where somebody surrenders more than they need to in order to get the get the pat allowed that you could say that that space between what was what was surrendered and what the prior art disclosed was tangential because you didn't have we don't have every single case before us we have one case what we can see what happened  to be interchangeable because if that were the case you would expect to have you expect to see that there was some interchanging and what they have told you is that there are some reasons that they may have have limited metrix a di sodium and that's the in thousand and five so they're very intentionally in this patent when at the same time that in europe they're referring to penetrate sort of penetrates and i sodium in their earlier pattern they're referring to penetrates and imitrex addai sodium but in this patent every single time every single i think the most single telling thing earlier the only one i've been looking at what a very very glad that you've got it in front of you judge moore and if you look at that page what you see is that the same time they are narrowing from when they are going from from any fully to penetrate the dye sodium and simultaneously on the exact same page of the prosecution history there they are only going to full of acid work physiologically available pronouncing that correctly in that are disclosed in aka moto and when you get to the substitute the pharmaceutical accepted acceptable substitute ammonium salts that's a very small class and of course this court doesn't even require for think i mean i'm with judge laurie i'm having difficulty the disclosure dedication rule is to my understanding a pretty clear doctrine in you would like us to muddy it in in really an unsuitable way as far as i'm concerned by saying that if hakim already discloses just general statements but nowhere in it for methe amine either on its own or as  methot mean it nonetheless constitutes a disclosure of exactly that particular compound i can't imagine why we would mess our doctrine up that much well respectfully judge moore i think a couple of things are in play here one is i think it's quite telling that you know for purposes of tangency ality this is not tendency i understand says the disclosure dedication doctrine and something different and it's very clear the case law on it is clear it's disclosed morning again may please the court let me just sort of hit the new points on prosecution history stoppel rather than repeating what we all just went through the issue on which amendment is being your reference which talks about the n t fellate issue but there's nothing in support of what mr o'quinn said in the record but more importantly it kind of doesn't matter the context of the invention and the context of the amendment focuses on the not as a die sodium and i think that if we were arguing foreseeability that would have some relevance perhaps because we're not claiming that we lack the ability to say different words but that's not the question is focused on this file history of this file history alone as read through the eyes of the skilled person and if you start importing things from outside the file history that the challenger would like to then you have to start importing things from outside the file history but the patent owner would like to import and that's not how we do it on the three hundred and sixty five patent undoubtedly different language was used but the question is what was the rationale because the claims thing is by the way we have a dependent claim to a limp at the time that we amended the broader plan so if there was some concern about breath of one claim we already had the narrow claim nothing from this file history makes any objective sense as relating to one hundred and twelve dollars and it makes perfect objective sense relating to the activity fully on a disclosure dedication there is not a single case from this court doing anything like what mr o'quinn is asking you to do usually in disclosure dedication the language at issue is in the pap that's the mind run of the cases sometimes you had one case where it was incorporated by reference explicitly into the past and because of the law saying incorporation by reference makes it as if it's part of the specification this court went that far there's another case where the language was in the priority document and conspicuously removed from the specification but form correct preferred examples you could say sure but you keep understating it and then we point out to the correct words you say sure i don't think i'm not i don't think i'm doing that your honor my point is well that's my interpretation go ahead well yours is the mo just tell me what about the following is wrong maybe of the premise the three hundred and sixty five pattern came out of the application tonight seventy eight to one right exemplified by the salts of pharmaceutically acceptable bases or acids and courtney salts and he gives the entire rest of the paragraph as pharmaceutical acceptable salt so as i understand your argument it wasn't expressed incorporated by reference but even if it had been it then doesn't go on to disclose the particular all that is correct and i'll just as long as i'm here i'll make one final point the definition of empty full weight in column full which focuses on the compound interacts with the relevant enzymes tells the person ordinary skill that when it's talking about alternate n t fully it's talking about different activity from it's not different thought forms of the same activity fully and so and that an independent reason why disclosure dedication does not and if there are no further questions i will sit down like it was roman tangentially exception cannot apply it's done so because there's been repeated has been in reference to the disputed term in the remarks to the examiner as part of the explanation even when it wasn't necessary and indeed i mean this court's decision in in integrated technologies so the representations convey to the public that the pentagon was relying in that case on physical contact in this case the words they said penetrate said di sodium which tangent realities is is is asserted was specifically relied on not just in the claims but in the remarks in the explanation and the court in every single one of those cases is said you can't therefore say that it's that it's it's the same prosecuting prosecuting attorney and the quote the fundamental question that we keep coming back to and we'll keep saying it's what was the rationale for the narrowing amendment ok what was the rationale for including the word you haven't heard one today they just said it wasn't necessary we didn't need it everybody knows that all that matters is pema track said well of all the matters as contracts that you would have thought that they might have said have a track said by itself once