objects and given a number of issues actually talk about the motion to amend st which is we believe it's not was improperly tonight and then i'll move on to the anticipation around the region around thirty four original claim eleven where you miers reaction mixture differs from its liquid reaction composition and they correct that this wasn't raised i believe that that is not the case and we do brief that in fact this issue came up during the oral hearing before the board it came up and we've had it in our declaration which of course you never cited as for example at paragraph five marks and that's what your appendix appendix so reason why we we we've argued the mixture in a reactor is different then any other mixture of composition going downstream coming out of the reactor this is fully briefed and one thing i would like to know is that common five we believe if you go to columns three and pork they talk about the president mention and that president mention is the certain amount right and i died and less than five percent of water column five talks about as much as fourteen percent  round one which is the reason why we just going disclaim claim one but that's a different reference what we're talking about is meyer i see it and they're saying my euro doesn't disclose it on page eight of the read brief the st full paragraph the forty three patent claims do not recite the entire process for making you see the gas instead there is limited to just one aspect of the process distilling a mixture contain products of the cardinal as ation reaction to purify the city gas and they say this the claim process is thus do not actually require one to perform that carbon elation the board russia now is that there's they're saying there's a link between those two and they rely on our paragraphs seventy seven dollars there's no other citations to our declaration whatsoever the one time they cite to our declaration is is basically out of context and against  describes basically the same process and it discloses that there is a distillation that can be done with reaction composition as counsel has stated the present invention is the low amount of water so the reference line thirty of the mirror reference says you can do the president mention on the liquid reaction company the board correctly interpreted that and supported by mr any camps testimony that that meant the low water distillation process on a composition also had the claim amount that's all that's required for anticipation and the board was entitled to credit so many is expert and and did so here  as to the difference between claim one and claim eleven they did not raise any separate distinctions based on claim eleven and seemed seemingly have conceded that claim one when the prior by cancelling claim rather than maintain it during the proceedings  dyson's primary argument just to address the waiver point we don't need to get to wherever the primary for the board was that you do to sleep in without flashing mistreating can't testify that his reading of them your reference was that you could and the board credits it is testimony in that regard that substantial evidence supporting the board's interpretation as to the amended claims the board made separate findings of the meth labs to concentration for the  stated at appendix page twenty six dollars that it was finding that the your reference discloses distilling a mixture with the claimed amount of meth last eight for the same reason that it determined with regard to anticipation in other words it's the same claim element the board found for the same reason that it was present in the records the more went on however and analyzed this noble reference and said it's a noble takes a well known problem they separate nation in the overhead of a column and it tells you that where you have that issue you can address it by reducing the last to concentration what they did is they took the example from europe of nine point eight percent by weight and simply reduced it to within the claim range and i would note that within the claim range is again the more preferred range of moura which discloses point five to six percent by weight as the more preferred range so as the noble didn't have to take you very far and indeed it only had to take you into what you're already taught was the preferred range for methyl acetate so that reference  is just additional support for the board's determination and so we would argue that the board's obviousness termination is correct based on substantial evidence supporting that factual finding and finally as to the other concentrations the testimony that the board accredited was from this training camp again he stated that the concentrations were broadly ranges that were well known in the art and that there was nothing new or inventive about them this is his testimony in appendix page two t six and he said as a result in my opinion there's there's nothing new or inventive about compositional ranges now being claimed in proposed sixteen and indeed di so doesn't even argue most of the elements that they've added to claim sixteen the claims about a page and a half long and they've only argued  additional claim element the reason for that is that what claim sixteen does is it takes the well known monsanto process from the one thousand nine hundred and sixty s with some modern updates that are disclosed in the prior art and it simply describes every single aspect of that process from top to bottom so what we heard was that were contesting factual findings but i would think the santal evidence or means considering all the evidence including our declaration and if you look at the found written decision how do they even consider it i mean there's nothing just choose not to believe it that's that's there's nothing in the law that says that but again we're as pan are wondering like how was our declaration considered how was a weight when we have statements in direct contrast to what the something like that there's nothing like that and as far as again obviousness is a legal conclusion that some of you don't know well i know there's actual underpinnings but of course is the legal