that comes out of a herniated disk and it hinges on the surrounding nerve tissue and causes pain once by two mechanisms one is simple pressure on the other is mediate is defined on page four seven four six so just to state it simply this invention is better treatment of back pain by localized and what i just want to explain what we were trying to get at in that paper they had not no one had reached the conclusion yet that t n f is the only bad actor there are other side of commons and no anderson who we complained was not being fair and not being truthful and then they said well even if dr anderson's testimony isn't accurate or reliable we can read it for ourselves so they read that for themselves but if i could just point out that a lot of subsequent paper biomarker and aoki and it's in the record to eight four five i quoted in the brief it was not possible to draw any conclusion conclusion regarding which of these cytokines might be directly involved that's talking about their own marker nine hundred ninety eight and the series two and the fact that right so it's a factual question yeah itself the question is whether there are substantial evidence for that or its findings right i think there is not because they say they interpret it for themselves and they discounted our expert testimony by he uses ellipses he puts words in that actually aren't there and he's just changing the meaning the first time this case was on appeal it was a very similar situation where dr anderson was changing the meaning of the written record and this court found there was no substantial evidence this time you know we have the same situation and other synergistic substances is necessary as well they had not come to the conclusion that the t n f alone was the important thing to block and it's also important to realize that even if you have decided it's t n f you still have to know whether it's the local key and have coming from your place for posts that is causing all the pain or is that attracting cells from the blood and which has more t n f and that's what they say in the p c t in the next paragraph the third explanation could be that the amount of t n f in the nucleus proposes may well be enough to start the sufficient those is necessary to block the contribution from these new cassettes and thereby also blocking the events leading to nerve injury so what about the disclosure of twenty six ninety eight and so there was it could not be verified experimentally and they're thinking about what could be done what could explain it but ultimately you can see in the p c t they never answer that question and they're do so i should get that invention but the series two didn't work he didn't say it worked he didn't think it worked he did many homework or did many experiments later to me that what you point to as an equitable conduct is just there just rear differences of opinion well me here has been to understand what the logical relationship among the various issues is or whether one like that one i mentioned might be dispositive if it went against you well the issue of who invented first is really what i was talking about essentially the nucleus proposes does not mediate any pathologies or conditions of the spinal cord and that's absurd and they were trying to preserve their s