it filed for our c e o which means i'm going to continue prosecution and i'm going to continue prosecution does not mean that there is no weight given to that administrative decision by the board instead what you see in the that the decision had to have been litigated fully and fairly well i mean the problem i have with the argument both sides is there's a whole series of cases that happen creation of craig and subsequent cases which deal with this issue which you don't address in your brief and i'm not going to get into them now but it seems to me that a very hard argument that's collateral estop but the what the promises they were looking at it under different standards mean when you're talking about the you know that the boards of other proceedings other than i p r is what you're talking about are where there are different presumptions and different burdens and there there was a presumption as it related to inherent see that the board was of are law allowed to rely upon because the examiner is not in a position to to basically be putting evidence on those presumptions don't apply proceeding we address that and perform yes but when the board makes a final decision on the prosecution case it is making a decision that is based on a preponderance of the put into evidence during cross a kitchen but the reason that we didn't put that other information in there is because we're disputes in other words we have to show this is a natural consequence throughout the entire scope of the claim so if we just provide e decisions presidential and this is a mark that way it is still a final judgment in the area even if i don't understand what you are you don't understand what the president told me you know what i don't understand is why this kind of decision in this particular case should not apply to the same i p r i understand what presidential would mean it would mean that it can apply to everybody but here we're asking does it apply in the exact but what you're really asking  do is to take this presumption as it relates to inherently and to import it into the i p r despite cases that we have decided that say you can't do that you cannot use even if it is a final decision it doesn't matter because it's not the same issue it's not based on the same predicate but i disagree i disagree and the reason i disagree is because we are not trying to rely on a presumption conventional fabrics have t p p values over and over fifty point five so it would be obvious for person of honor so there's no evidence in the record of that fact except the presumption no no there was evidence there was evidence of what conventional that provide a high degree of protection from heat here but where does it say that the conventional fabrics have a four point five rating and that non woven fabric would have an even higher rating which is that all what you are saying no no  resistant fabrics but then said but the specification discloses that conventional fabric seventy four point five and then it says appellants make no argument that the fabrics of either reference us less have a value of less than four point having made that argument during the play the prosecution or they feel from the denial the impact for the claims that issues that were being challenged the structure of the fabric that would result from a combination of those two facts those two references would match would be the same as a structure that was in the claims at that time and based on th inherently rejection and inherent rejection never occurred after that point in time in prosecution the prosecution really opened and the examiner found that those were non obvious choice neighbor meant but as a practical matter what why isn't the fact that you might have been unable men problem if we buy your underlying argument indicative of the fact that maybe your underlying argument isn't as strong as it should be that there is evidence that conveys that conventional fabrics have this to p p rating and that it would be hard person body to figure out how to do that with respect to this list of fabrics that were in the cl fundamentally they're saying the same issue was in the first proceeding because the fabric that's now within the claims was of within the twenty was that were before the b p the first time and  you i was mistaken that the position that a non woven fabric would be expected to have a lower t p value was in the patent instead the patent self was originally all manner of creation of the fabric as we just heard the appellee admit though is that according to their own declarations they thought that those claims ultimately issue and now they're subject to i p r s wouldn't we essentially be saying that the whole purpose of the i p r statute gets wiped out because once the claim it except for those few claims that issue without any appeal no i don't think that would be the conclusion here is a very odd issue that we're looking at we're not looking we're not saying that the board's decision renders you know renders the current