the board and yes i hear it's me too fundamental errors that i'd like to focus on this morning before you get to the merits of your argument that i have a couple of very quick question flyweight background ok the first question is the version of that is commercialized now there's that practice this patent yes so that's a product that is prepared with heating the magnesium stary with the core under the proper construction of the claim all three components and that's the first issue i do want to talk about is clean construction all three components have to be together for the core matrix to be heated so if somebody that reduced a product that did not he and of course there's the claim language x itself which is from claim destruction the starting point so i can address that issue as well as what the board mistakenly read for its improper construction the have a reference to then maybe they are less likely to interpret it as being require respectfully your honor those are complaining different issues of course when twelve issues are not at play in an inner party's review and we do believe that the claim construction itself along with consistent agreement throughout these proceedings supports our construction this wasn't debated it wasn't a dispute that the core matrix passed to the police three ingredients and then the backdoor nature it has to be created that wasn't and the parties were asked by the the board to speak to put in writing an agreement that they made clear at the world hearing that this is what the claim means and they weren't even disputing the whys or the benefits but simply looking at the plain language and given the consistent testimony from the experts about what this claim means they agreed to that before the board at the oral hearing in they put this in writing and the stipulation the board misread the stipulation the stipulation second point they define heating the point matrix as necessarily predicated on what the core matrixes those three ingredients combined there is a final sentence this is my third point that the board read as of this reading those two sentence being the one that starts heaving occurs at any time during the preparations you're on that final sentence is simply talking about when heating a can occur once you have the three blended ingredients together it cannot be read in your position is correct why wouldn't that sense of simply said he didn't curse at any time after preparation of the blended mixture it's the during that causes you a problem it seems to me because during the preparation the mixture could reasonably encompass would seem to me before you've added all of the components of the mixture is not right no your honor let me give you a few reasons first because it can't be read in isolation from his two prior agreements say you're going to entirely when the mixture without anything whatsoever and then all the meeting is entirely there after we recognize frankly a very sort of metaphysical minor situation where you might be blending and heating at the same time and so it's simultaneously blending you have the blended mixture and you're also heating therefore heating the blended mixture for you cannot be in that sense it's particularly in light of the two prior agreements and the consistent testimony by the experts in in section one thousand comments that make museums theory is sensitive to mixing time and that blend this is the final sentence on page appendix four six six one blending times with magnesium spirit should be carefully process used by mcguinty and he says two sentences later and knowing what a person of ordinary skill in the art would know about the decades old handling issues of museums theory no other interpretation think or would want to add magnesium citrate to that hot melt extrusion process he again says similarly and paragraph forty three a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason to try to it would be harmful to do and i don't believe harmful is the test your honor obviousness inquiry is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these ingredients in the manner claimed and talk for the for the board didn't care and find the claims under either of the claim constructions so the board construed the core matrix is heated based on the stipulation which is similar to statements in the prosecution history and patent or in the expert testimony that says there's a benefit to feeding the magnesium steroids i do not recall any statements like that i think both experts did say that one of skill in the art would understand that you would giving that but what was it i think wasn't what's important is that the disclosure in the ninety seven six patent doesn't say that there's any way to overcome any of these problems that the said about heating the magnesium staring they seem to suggest that they have invented th property of the dutch from its meeting but the board said what we have is a claim body that's a structurally complete dosage form there's no indication that the abuse deterrent in the preamble in any way changes the components of the claim and so under this court's case i said without it in relied on the board and say that there's nothing in prosecution where it was relied on so there's nothing to say that this provides any patentable weight to the dosage form itself it would appear to deter abuse regardless of the necessarily the a matter at least to some degree ok benefits really is not the lens from which to review whether a claim is obvious or not and importantly i claim construction our claims couldn't be even were our claim couldn't be more abundantly clear that you have to have the thing together first before it's heated and i would just commend the court to the agreed upon testimony throughout this case at least in five instances both the first expert and their second expert they continued to change their theory at the world hearing in our expert consistently agreed with the plain meaning of the claim that you have to have these three ingredients together before hitting you can't just have one and that's not a sensible reading more was it a sensible reading of the stipulation and then i would put it i think you have mentioned all couple of times that what he did together with the magnesium sterrett was not done if you know that not correct that's not correct and why because all three have to well i understand that but what their position is is that magnesium stary doesn't make sure that i'm on the same track as you are the two positions are one is that the magnesium steroids has to be part of the core matrix at the time that the whole mix is heated that's