whether that limitation is found in the prior art the board committed multiple legal errors first the board failed to consider the prior art as a whole instead it used an unprecedented balance of looking at it is that the board precisely did consider the art as a whole so that when you pointed to the nine hundred nineteen article by surewood and it said well we really need to know what what sixty years later seventy years later something a skilled artisan would have thought about that in context of the over a lot over all prior art and by then in the fourteen years later there was pretty good reason to discount did you rely on conduct for this proposition for purposes of the grounds of musicians for purposes of showing a conversion rate more like th you and if so show me where in your petition and say look at the conversion rate in comp we rely on that if we do disclose and rely upon the client reference that's part of institute or grounds and specifically with respect to the board relying on it they did make a factual finding that the comp reference does disclose the conversion rate of about fifty three fifty four percent but the error that  which actually post dates all the prior art references had no relies on in this case so with respect to the board's findings about sure when or if their lack of use of shore when being earlier in time that's you know that's not appropriate because later references do disclose an incomplete conversion and specifically the fifty three and fifty four percent for the board it's saying is that the that error stems from the fact that they didn't consider the prior art as a whole had they looked at other part they would have seen lower conversion rates and specifically other aren't  that they've they've found isolated references one of which was very hope suggesting a lower conversion rate one perhaps in the area or sixty percent but they said that the overwhelming just because we do have other references that the explosive lower conversion rates and more importantly there are legal safeguards that this court has put in place with respect to looking at the prior art as a whole when the obvious patente to provide evidence with respect to teaching a way or criticality of that range and with respect to unexpected and so with respect to teaching away the board found that there was no teaching the way they rejected patent orders teaching away of coming forward understood roger but we do to your question regarding other evidence we do have other evidence with respect to the obviousness case the issue becomes the board was obligated to apply that presumption because there were case obviousness case in our brief so so we have that presented on page thirty two hundred fifty of our brief as i mentioned but really the issue becomes that had the board not conversion rates without properly were guarding and giving credit to conversion rates with with lower conversion rates i'd like to shift real quickly and address one other issue that patt owner has raised in their red brief and that is with respect to their argument that they were so ninety one does not teach any of the limitations in the independent claims with respect to calculating an effective in that case it's not going to trial and it's been stated there's a potential interesting issue here under the decision and praxair about the relationship between one along and one of three it's not been raised here you're familiar with praxair in general yes judge you know we do not believe that there is a one on one issue here in view of the fact that there is more than just a thought process that involved this is no different than any other treatment claim in the pharmaceutical industry where there is a determination made is that the dose and the doses that applied and that's exactly what's happened not having to take up your time with that board spent a lot of time looking at the underlying references and they came to a conclusion and that conclusion was that the state of the art that was used in the petition by far was not representative of the art at the time the perfect time that was a fact finding by the district court and i'd say that alone was the basis then for moving forward with a decision that was made by the by the board they look at the references and they said very little oh the fact they acknowledge that it existed there was no real effort made by parr to emphasize the teaching of i just signed the petition there's a single sentence for it not and i think on page one eleven yes they have the appendix and that's all he nevertheless comp has this percentage in it that's lower than sixty well it's a lot lower than thousand i don't see a counterpart to that in the board's discussion of comp which aside from everything else is much more recent i would agree there is no specific discussion but the board did point out when it first addressed that there was more to than simply testing that they needed to look at sure there was a eight hour time from during which they collected the sample not twenty four twenty four is a standard in the art and in fact the testimony from the expert dr sondheim or in this matter was that the values that were set forth and comment did not relate to inherently i think all that happened here is the board looked at this and said what good is this data point it was admitted that the testing actually had not been done over what was then accepted to be a twenty four hour period the existence of the co that occurs after the administration of a ph program takes some time and there's a reason why you see in the references the vast majority if not all other than this go to a twenty four hour time frame and the expert declaration that you were just they come back and in their reply and again their lawyers document in their reply and and address that about the only issue that they addressed was there was testimony during a deposition by dr sondheim or that he thought his view unsupported totally was that well it really had tapered off well indeed it did taper off it was still being a review of an ongoing basis and probably stop at eight hours and at that point in time there still was he ate her ph d and it was being determined at that point to exist the other problem though with copy is the value here the value is not fifty four the value is actually thirty two point six that's a conversion to p h e n that's what we're talking about here johns they found for whatever reason in the testing that they did they found another agent p b j yen which was also the german to exist at that time the data points in here as i said third they're not substantive they don't have support based back actually to similar sorry going back to the twenty nineteen version showed that there was there were four data points in what dr sondheim or said was the only ones that i considered to be useful now since were those that were based on ten and above and the two data points at ten and fifteen so that when they were  so the other problem here and i assume the piper sent the board is made up of the underlying experts in this field as well the board looks at this and says well we're always supposed to do the twenty four hour time frame wasn't used my recollection is that when they did not reply contact was part of the decision to move forward but there was really the discussion with respect to that they had in the decision to institute statement about what comp was but that was it there was no discussion about why they were and why companies actually put it in that other the fact that was requested by par at the time so they didn't consider it was part of the institution which appears in their response consider them your honor and clearly if you look at their final written decision they referred to it as part of the institution decision on ground one they captioned their determination on that decision by saying that comp this part of it and what they said was basically what horizon set forth was evidence that the values that were being used at that critical time were those that were in the ninety two one hun and what what they also relied on was when you look at the references that were involved that they will all rely on such as sure one thirty three the new federal label and our will twenty two which was a reference that they brought to the table we argued in each of those cases sure when thirty three there was a twenty four hour time frame ninety five percent conversion chip all their reference ninety five percent from the conversion and the federal which pirate indicates shouldn't be given any consideration whatsoever of course is a label that was set forth based on standards from the f d a so to say that there should be no credit given for what's on the defendant label i think is ignoring the fact that it actually wasn't dorce by the by the f a so part addressed none of that not we put those issues on the table and what did they say to the tampa nothing on those points during the proceeding and the what was the board supposed to do at that point they took a look then at the at the prior art they saw the priory that was relied upon by horizon and saw that this was time we decided to them to decide the case on that basis and in fact  specifically par took no position on these another point which i think is quite imperfect and court in this case if you look at the prior art as a whole and the question really is thirty three and what's he say that there was a conversion rate of ninety five percent shown and sure when thirty three he also point to that purpose clearly to establish that database that he was and using and in the task at that point and you can't ignore the fact that he was an expert he is the one that actually to address but if you haven't specific questions of my short time left i will be pleased to address them  appendix one sixty five just newman with respect to your question about sure when and the fact that it was earlier in time and what the board said about  it's an error for the board to discount and disregard the teen reference  the other thing i'd like to mention regarding sure with thirty three which is what the patent owner relies upon that reference does not measure create p a g n conversion which is the claim limitation in this case what it measures is p s a and that's different than what's for sighted in the in the in the patent claim so from that perspective alone that's not even art that should be considered and we have made that argument all along and we did make that argument down below and specifically those are at appendix pages twenty three and three through twenty three