argument with respect to the in a vision of the claim to the trial court erekat not requiring enablement to the full scope of claims you claim to have specifically constructed have plaintiff's versions included hard very high scale would have been able to separate the two race in my in that there are separate and timers but the court the court did attend some analysis of formulation chemical formula but that's not the claimed invention that doesn't distinguish between the place from being part of the receiving mixture of any sugar or the absence from or being separate by itself hundred percent sure to the application need always showed how to make that compound and what defendants are arguing here is that you have to show how to separate this receiving mixed when they made that receiving make sure it contained and they claimed all forms of that preferred comp the court in a very reasoned mintage it was opinion analyzed the experts before it the credibility of their testimony and determined that it was testified on behalf of defendants on the enablement issue his whole the whole thrust of his testimony with that there was no nothing in the prior art to show the resolution of as three the course and the patent office both found support from the written description of the first filed application for the as an engineer and what they are saying is the application did exact the evidence that dr poppea at pfizer tried to resolve and didn't want to see it she did seventy five to twenty five separation of the starting material was to do the resolution  reagents that were available in the option the court also considered that two of the defendants use one of those standards reagents to make their commercial product the prior art was just given fifty of the single up to blois murder is free of ours the better course also has to consider the limits of detection that is available in the arts and as there was testimony at trial you could never fifty against you and then you come back and say no it's only one or the other i mean this is a long and tortured prosecution during which time you morphed from no particular level of purity to substantially pure to from there to a single individual or a matter of i keep saying that we're not seeing whatever it is but you even said at one point the examiner incorrectly concludes that the claim does not require any particular purity you you actually felt in your appeal brief before the board the idea that the claim does not require purity if there's a distinction between playing two and claim one claim one is to be as an answer or as a said and then said xander is incorrect in concluding the claim does not require any particular purity and then you added the language about a single optical isomers i don't know how that could be any clearer you may not have had to give those things up which has substantially your was never entered never considered the examiner in not answering me and maybe made some statements that substantial was not a definite term and that i questioned whether there was support of the specifications for the terms of stange at that time we were seeing that make sure claims were under appeal then prosecution was reopened during the appeal process and in order to the claim does not require any particular purity and as such is open to any composition of matter containing the recited isomer correct well that is not just talking about a race me your your saying the vendor is incorrect to the extent determination to claim there for a reason rassam age and so not only did you add one thing you added one instead the end said the end examiner was incorrect to conclude the claim doesn't require a particular purity what particular purity of which is what the defendants are trying to sell so they didn't give off that subject matter the claims directly to the subject matter which they wanted to cover exactly and there was no surrender of anything more disclosure that would be unprecedented and afoul of the court's precedents in genentech the court specifically stated there is a failure to meet the enablement requirements that cannot be rectified by asserting that all the disclosure relating to the disclosure that they made is legally insufficient they then replaced it with twelve pages of actual disclosure of the piece from little conditions and the starting materials and all the steps necessary to separating the in fact didn't know how to separate it themselves into more importantly and tell anyone how to do it does this mean that you don't agree with the sun argument which we heard a minute ago that claimed that the patent doesn't disclose here