construction to this court reviews you know both is not the brightest reasonable interpretation it's divorced from the specification and it is inconsistent with  just cut into it and made maybe any number of problems have concerns or questions with respect to this claim but when you compare what the examiners claim construction and the boards why isn't the board right th is pads of the where there is anything that would not be considered a zero buck for example i'm really confused i think you're pushing that and judge dyke and i don't know why you are but is it because you've it's your view based on what is disclosed in the specification it necessarily is any mixture of the of the ingredients for side in the claims results in an easier traffic like composition according to the is it your argument that any and every mixture of percentage weight of the recited ingredients in the claims can and will result in a constant were essentially constant boiling point context for whatever reference you have if i have another patent so how would you construe based you're looking at the spat let's go back to where you step by step how would you construe a sea of truth like in the claims based on the i would see what they gave as the examples so first a broad example which is in any ranges in the incumbent nation then i would also look at the specific examples i don't understand which is that this is really confusing i thought you were saying a moment ago that all the combinations of compounds disclosed in these three cla these three claims is the public like qualities i guess i would say no but there is no evidence to the absolute either and i guess i'm struggling how we can have the term has to be defined by these ads there's no other evidence there's evidence on the record of other patents using other terminology other ranges for what is a trope like ok and those don't carry over so what's what's wrong with what the board did which was look into the specification and see what it believed to be the patent phone or attempt at lexicography as to it's going to term is your trip like compositions if what is wrong with an understanding of the patent and says anything any mixture of within these very broad weight percentages that results in a constant boiling point current of an essentially constant point such that when you boil the mixture when you when it's there is stuff evaporating from the mixture the the liquid composition doesn't change very much in its composition and when what is wrong with that understanding there's nothing wrong about it understand that was our understanding or did it did you understand the borg to be saying that while in a ga q discloses these various combinations of compounds claims are limited to species that has particular qualities that would you understand the board to have said that's what the board said the problem we have is there's no evidence there's been no argument nothing in these patterns that say anything within these ranges what does that mean this definition there is not one example of something that is not an easy  here they would see here they would see what they are directed to combinations of hippo trans one two three four zero in combination with one of the four other compounds this is what they intended during prosecution ok balance has just to clarify for myself does your do your arguments today stand or fall based on your proposed construction of the claim you have a certain conditions and certain compositional ranges do form what is that subset how do you feel how do you identify the steps other than by the result ordinary rules of claim destruction run of looking at the intrinsic record condition of un patentability would render that claim on battle if i understood judge dykes question who is saying if you have to mixtures that are in the prior art you have a mixture that's in the prior art to compositions and you later discover that they have a certain property then i got my understanding of his question was there's a genus of mixtures that was disclosed in the prior art but now you've gone through the practice of mechanically mixing those disclosed ingredients or at least a handful of them using different persuade percentages and ultimately finding through this ro mechanical routine experimentation and all that labor that certain ranges of those mixtures result in a really nice property and so now you claim anything in the entire genus of mixtures that has that really nice property is that patentable or not i believe the way you described it yes your honor that is pattern of all in us here we live in why would that be patentable if number one the genus was no number to the goal of having that desired property was no and three the process of trying to figure out which things in that genus has that property is known because you're just mechanically doing the mixtures you have a team of one hundred scientists and they're all in there you know responsible for a certain mixture of two greedy ends and they're using a sliding scale of different weight percentages and different pressures to figure out which combinations of those so just because you use a technique that is known in the art to find something that is unexpected that is still recognized be patentable under the law and that's what we have here we have we have compounds that are in a broad genus leaving aside the transit component in a broad genus and it was not expected that any combinations of these would actually yields an easy troth well that's the problem because you're saying we're claiming is a species that exhibits particular qualities which are unpredictable and we haven't identified except for a couple of examples which of those compounds within the genus are going to ha this i don't understand how you can have a patent which basically says we claim all species that have unpredictable desirable qualities within the genus but we're neither unaware claiming a particular anything that has unpredictable desirable qualities how can somebody claim that i don't believe that's what we're claiming are not your hypothetical i don't have to start whether you think that's the case or not you can argue later on it's not this case but under that and you give information and guidance to the public as to how to make that composition which is what we have in examples then that is the essence of patentability  hypothetical would make sense because michael let's just talk in terms of the neighborhood how does your specifications enable one of your yard to find all the other beyond the small handful of examples that you disclosed that have this wonderful property of is your true place because the experiment that is being used to demonstrate this unique property  the examples is a well known technique it's a genocide in the patent it is published in a scientific publication and dr saying gives testimony in the in this case evidence in this case about the what they have done to five to be the unique range and they say we've observed a temperature depression and you can take that data as we did imply it we have on pair on page thirteen in our brief you can see the actual plot of the data and you can see the easy atro point there that the depression point with that information a person of skilling are it's within the skill set of a person of skilling are to take that information from the examples and know exactly does not make that finding it makes the finding that from the evidence that was presented which includes the declaration that i was discussing it finds that yes there is sufficient evidence that the patents demonstrate the existence of an atheist so implicit in that finding is the fact that a person still only are would understand that there is a future so then if that's all true that there's this established technique for going about your business to try to find all these other interesting species that have this wonderful property why would it be obvious to do that at the time of this invention we knew that we wanted easier types compositions are trip like compositions we knew there were a bunch of these compounds that we would like to mix to figure out if there is a truck like we know that there is a well known established technique to go about to figure out how and which way is different mixtures are is your truck like why isn't that an obvious invention because your honor that all mixtures like invention would be nice to have it does not provide you the motivation to go out and try every single possible combination of components to find out i thought you said that there was evidence that someone skilled in the art would know how to do that and i think what judge chen is asking skill set to figure out well if i want change press or pressure slightly i can change the pressure slightly and end up still practicing in that compositional range with an easy a truck like constant boiling character but you have to start with the compounds in the first place there's got to be a selection to begin with the congo is your argument that something like in a cocky future is a lot of different compounds to mix together and it's your claim confine claims of particular starting materials that was the non obvious choice but then once you have that non obvious choice in front of you then tinkering this way that way and the other to get to that and locate it is your truck like compositions it was within the routine skill and therefore that's why it's enabled yes you're right are exactly that is exactly the argument that we're making here ok all can ask another question yes yes so your examples sometimes a differential of two degrees is is your drop like and then there's another example where the differential is six degrees and so it makes a little bit harder know for sure what your conception really is of and essentially constant boiling point the boiling point differential can be two degrees in one example six degrees another example what is one of skill and they aren't supposed to know and think well those are two different examples one is with one twenty five i believe and the other is with one thirty four a so if you're working with one twenty five one still in the art would understand from the guidance in the example that the constant walling behavior is not the same as one thirty four but they would be able to again using that i guess maybe a different way of asking is why don't just go with the two degree differential as the default understanding of what is in this intially constant boiling point because this patent is disclosing multiple asier tropes if we had one one thirty four a and transit then that would make sense but here we are disclosing one fifty two a and various other there's four in total so each of them is a separate range if you will for that system the other system is different it's a different embodiment of an ac atro composition that i have won over the argument that you've been  recollection of the record here is you don't say we've narrowed it down to that of the subsegments worth investigating and we provide the procedure a method that someone skilled in new york would use to identify those within that subset that are  stated that work was that argument made to the board i believe it was your honor could you show me where we talk about i believe it's page fifty two i page fifty two we that's where the argument began is and we are citing to i know we refer to one of our appeal br any combination of the ingredients were cited in the claim correct and also as a these aren't unpredictable this is the whole thing where with this whole prosecution got off track right but the argument is is you have to in order to meet your burden explain why it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the particular compounds from the broad range of compounds that are described in a gotti and then use mixtures of those to create an is your trope like composition to what degree were you arguing to two degrees boiling point the claims are called cover for these mixtures there is no distinguishing that says if you have this and this than one point will be different than two or six when you look at that you go back to the specifications they intended to cover all these combinations and they say we found this narrow subset i still have not heard anywhere where there is in there all subsets they say that two amounts are from zero to ninety nine and one to one hundred of the cycle they state the example those examples again in those examples those examples for example with one thirty four a goes up to fifty one percent and their degrees in their argument here they say hold up to fifty percent previously they said up to seventy five percent of the translator for one two three four and they're still calling the broad range that's saying we found from zero to ten and fifteen to nineteen there's nothing for me to figure out other than what they have written here yes this is an example but the examples should not read out all the other environments in the specification the specifications particularly say broad range they cover all ranges that doesn't distinguish anything from him a guard which says we found these combinations they work well and there's no suggestion i got hit with the wind limitation of bridges either