one i think first of all the strange thing is she doesn't address the holiday weekend issue and well of course i'd be happy for you to for you to send it back i would have to agree that it would be better of better for practitioners and better for my client if the court simply reached the merits and so we we would have to decide we could decide either way in connection with a harmless error analysis whether or not the district court was correct best served if the court were would make a determination and if this report got it wrong or the district court characterize it as standing whether than something else i think it's within this court's preview to do to interpret the statute as it ought to be in they are there was a miscalculation on the patent term adjust our age and that it constitutes a taking as a result if we agree with the p t o that it and allowance of alexis claims are based on those previous requests why should this statement be enough to put the p t o on notice that your main expressed requests for a national stage hear that i don't see how that can be seen as a failure so you have to take advantage of an optional procedure which had no impact undergone patent term under the earlier version of the statute which where an african has made an express request with out regulations that their forms are advisory they're not mandatory if they don't have they're not they're not walls they're not subject to write something even if but even if they're not mandatory even if the form didn't have to be checked you still had to have something to required to court in the caption of their case on one because that's the date and prosecution starts at three seventy one c day and and that was the situation on the national face commencement as the start of stage or the thursday and the p g a found for various reasons that it it could have been done this latest tuesday and then it said well if it could have been tuesday we're going to take it that it was done  made please the court i'm down a curse on the director p t o cannot consider an application before the time and in the treaty has expired and lastly gets an express requests it's not hard to way to make an express request as you would need to know this case in the express for christe ultimately was made even though the box was never checked no your honor and express request would need to be a clear and unambiguous request so so  has two things that has the form with box three not checked and then it has this preliminary amendment with language in the text that i believe i said far called boilerplate that is routinely request early national stage processing without checking the box and that's not what they were doing here this is language that requests early examination so you know it's not language that requests for early examination international stage is to say they're not making an express request for early national stage processing they do want the examiner to prioritize this case when it does begin and the national stage the patent that it does not matter that the district court used to be standing label that the analysis was the merits analysis it was that this version issue does not matter here and as the supreme court said in morse and vs national australia bank there is no need to remain and to affix a twelve b six label instead of a twelve the one label to the decision now if does not matter in this case it matters tremendously in overall that the pretext of all corrections that not apply to all patents filed up to twenty thirteen before it knew what the p t a was going to be and people had to file appeals before they knew what the p t o was going to do with their reconsideration so the technical corrections act fixes these procedural problems nobody gets less time they certainly fix it going forward the question is whether or not that the language could reasonably interpreted the interpret to make it re that's right and there is no reason to think that congress wanted us to continue to live with this broken process going forward intil every application filed before tw support so there is not legislative history on this particular question but the what we would end up with and the court knows it will be a very long time before every application filed it before twenty's or teen has been fully processed we would end up in the situation there are how many applications pending prior to twenty thirteen i don't know the answer to is is if the p t a proceeding is not a separate proceeding under the statute if the p t o interpretation doesn't get deference we have a world in which there are two different p t a proceedings depending on when a patent is filed or dance of but there's a world where there are proceedings commenced on and after that date the p t o proceeding as this court knows is made after examination is complete it's a separate process with separate silence separate timelines addressing a separate ultimate issue so that is a separate proceeding and the rules for that proceeding should govern going forward the other point i want to make though is the reliance point because as the district are found nothing changes here nobody gets real ass p t a because of the technical corrections act there are a few people who get more but nobody gets less so this is not a situation in which somebody might be relying on a previous technical corrections that requirements people do generally have standing to challenge their p t a the district court's decision was really a merits decision they're not injured because they're wrong because they're not entitled to this time under any view of the world but as the supreme court has said we don't need to remain and to put a different label on that decision right the district court was correct they do not get this and they should just yes correct and we have a district court judgment that never reached the  retroactivity issue and you're asking us to now breach the retroactivity issue wouldn't that just be an advisory opinion at this point so the court can affirm on any grounds supported by the record you who could there any number of ways to get to the place where and they don't get the additional p t a one is that nothing changed between these two statutes  is the technical corrections act does not apply because the proceeding started after either one of those those works it's i only wanted to flag that this pretext for corrections act process was extremely and wielding and there is no reason to think that congress would have wanted that process to continue to apply nobody else wanted it either we did notice and comment on the definition of proceeding and nobody asked for it to apply based on when the patmos filed some people wanted to apply to even more patents because nobody loses time under this and the process makes more sense but nobody asked process new question new timelines this is an entirely reasonable reading of the satchel and it would make no sense to think that congress wanted us to interpret the statute the other way to continue living under this th for corrections act regime where people were filing court cases before they knew what the p t o was going to do with their reconsideration motion it is it just didn't make sense  to do which is implement the treaty not to do something different from the treaty and under both three seventy one i'm and that the treaty itself it is quite clear p t o can't start without an express request there just w thirty months for that answer yes no out of thirty days thank you thirty days come up a lot so but yeah either there's an express request or that time has expired three seventy one explicitly references the time in article twenty two of that treaty  a new proceeding the issue here relates to actually taken during the application process whether we requested or didn't request or if you if you determine that that's that that's relevant factor or where actions taken not in the p g a proceeding but in the application proceeding and the next point i'd like to make your honor coming from a is that under either version of the statute or the pre or to provide documents were feeds not to the thirty month period so you know with regard to sort of in the abstract thing starting and in the context of the fourteen month period