sam and i think that if i understand your argument it is well when you reference the f d a by a liquid length you're necessarily getting not only eighty to one hundred twenty five percent but a ninety percent confidence interval and so there i think they're and type situation you would just show that percentage of the drugs they sold actually do in fact are within that range and then your damages would be based only on that percentage that would not be able to or seek damages and they would free to sell the percentage of drugs that are outside of that range because those would be not infringing right here when we determine that there's infringement you're going to be effectively giving an injunction against all of their product sales including the ones that we don't infringe so wouldn't that ninety percent confidence interval be sensible given the different circumstances of this case visiting the typical infringement suit prevail  me here because on the one hand by saying well the patent only recites or calls for range without the ninety percent confidence level or anything else then it seems that that and has my attention and that is the fact that it is ninety percent confidence up does strike me as more of a question of the fact of infringement as opposed to still legal interpretation of the arguing that the reason for ninety percent of the time it seems that the ninety percent confidence level goes to the fact of infringement necessary to the subject matter because if you and if you look at this in the context of what happened for truth you would look at each each individual it would go but you know it meets the range or it doesn't meet their range whereas the ninety percent confidence level only has relevance in that from a statistical standpoint and that's something that i find interesting it's entirely possible given a range and especially arranged this broad that a and b can be equivalent in being c can be equivalent but there's no way in c could be equivalent even ten percent of the time like say that's a good thing i realize it's not the one hundred twenty five percent for the equivalence between a and b and then between b and c another hundred twenty five percent well then you actually have a situation where clearly less than fifty percent of the drugs are going to be two peaks one at eighty percent and one of one twenty five the fact that the man is smack dab in the middle is sort of irrelevant for the comparison purposes so i guess what i'm getting at is a does that does state it exist such that a fact finder is going to be capable of crossover study doesn't necessarily have to be there all the time a comparison is possible but if the comparison itself was facially inadequate and the district court would be exercising a proper game keeping role in what you're saying to me as there is incorporate the entirety of the text didn't specifically identify what it was that they were referring to were whether they were referring to the entirety of the document it was simply a reference they actually i'm sorry  proposition but rather a relevant one that's what the blue book says with regard to the word see with the c site as opposed to when you have a quotation or something that you are directly citing you don't put the seaside in there so here they have more o suppose that fifty one percent of the time your product infringes well in a normal law suit they would be entitled to damages for those fifty one percent then you would be free to sell the other forty percent of the product if one percent of your product infringers they would free to get damages for you one then one percent and you could sell the other ninety nine percent and so why isn't this whole ninety percent issue one of infringement and damage assessment rather than one of claim construction you're only going to infringe my patent if you do it ninety percent of the time the panel sees two very plausible way as to construe this arguably and one of them would result it seems like it really non sense of clane it's hard for me to understand why anyone would write a claim that way this i mean is there i think it sounds like everything we're talking about is so factual that it just seems to me that it's all fact question for a fact finder on the issue of infringement because what you're saying is well you necessarily get over that hurdle because if the mean is a bell curve then you get over the hurdle possibly but it's the mean represents some sort of scheme distribution and he assured me that evidence existed in the record