as a source tells me this is the supreme court itself the trial is first and foremost search for the truth this case we never got to the truth because it happened from an appeal board made a plainly erroneous and highly prejudicial decision to expunge all right mind sections expert testimony expert testimony that was properly submitted by red lines or thirty seven c f r what is it what prevented you from submitting the expert declaration earlier rather than relying on forty two one twenty three other rules don't require you petition in the motivation to combine and of the when the trial was evidence of the motivation to combine to do submit in connection with initial filing we submitted the prior art reference because then we're under a very deferential standard where we defer to the board's interpretation of islam no your honor because the problem that you have here is why this case is so important you have different channels of the board applying different criteria not your fault you were foreclosed for introducing evidence later on deficit the comics for actually state that they took that into consideration in the published rule making and public comments they took any consideration and they said if you if you want to call with a whole intentionally intentionally withhold information you can do that your drug your consequence is going to beat your ideas out initiated mr moon wells and this problem was granted originally  for the same ssion and you go through a due process procedure then goes to you can't just say inches somebody in a vacuum so that's whether or not the situation the circumstances warranted that being the case and so to answer your question yes if there is  their side of the story as the due process is all about and your particular my analogy is a little closer to the vote in this particular case it's twofold one because we had an expert testimony we submitted that it didn't raise any new did the board of use discretion and a lot of legal immigrants denied the motion to have this particular piece of evidence to be excluded from the evidence and this case is an extreme case this is not even a close call where you said well and if it's not even you know submitted two months later three months later it's submitted seven months to proceed twenty eight days within the thirty day window if it's the only evidence they submit of seems to me you're requiring too much of the obvious analysis and going beyond can start requiring a specific teaching that it be done in that specific way whereas if we assume that billy and i know you disagree with it but for the purposes of the street a system where you're creating the smoke and you don't have the closest of or you actually find the spot ok so but but again i know you don't want to answer the hypothetical because you think it's too close to the fact that i'm a gemini gilliam has every single one of those elements then what we knew today we would have submitted with our with our petition what is going to decorate our fish well that just isn't a credible argument your honor's first of all the statute itself is acting statute section section three twelve ok that's where it goes with the petition secondly even though the the actual first petition was filed on the first day of the of the implementation of september sixteenth two thousand and twelve we have been talking with the panel with the board about these there's a new case there was also cited in the media in the reply and that case is a recent case from the board and it's a layer of north america and i just want to note that it's a similar situation as the other case to decide to be addressed with higher standards higher showings that is not the political to one twenty three a so the rule says a plain language is what we need to follow as we should listen to