as you have no doubt noticed roger o'malley is not here to do a recent injury but she is listening and who have watching us and show fully and case from court of federal claims for not being argued room will be submitted on the greatest we're going to hear three arguments and then take a short break and then return fo complaints about what happened in the district court the first of all that the district court made errors of claim construction and secondly that the district court disregarded the evidence that we submitted principally the declaration of our ex course we have to wash before we lose if we did that too at the same time everything would come out there would be no separation but what is going on and this is illustrated by the diagram it's on page three of the great brief not that i want to go there but it shows there's no the only reason that was ever is that the conditions change so concentration increases the full grasp in let's go comes out is collected and lays it out in graphic detail just records comments on that was your just one sentence or attempting to redefine send those first have to have to first have to watch a separation which this logically you have to watch a separation mixed before you do get into the looting process at and with and that's exactly what happens your own in other words what our expert said is call have unwanted contaminants not attached come out of the bottom be disposed of and then have the grass to come out afterwards because it's saluted and things like that the district court said them happen employed by sandoz does not have the sequence will washing in the loading steps required by claim seven that entails continuously pumping a refold solution and i think you're out of that gets into the second disputes which is about whether it is required to form a discrete washing solution outside the column and then put it and whether after that it's required to form a discrete eluting solution that as opposed to for the purpose of mobilizing steps are you you are you saying that if there were no chemo agent the claim would still make sense that creating a disease  how much you would minister it's not saying why you administrator in other words disease treating doesn't mean that this must be administered for the purpose of of killing cancer cells the that the patent is very i think what he's talking about in the preamble when it says a method of treating the disease requiring peripheral stem cell transplantation like what it's talking about is a method such as the use of high dose chemotherapy or radiation that will kill all of these stem cells in the bone marrow and if and therefore the patient will die if there is not a re transplantation and the therefore the method of treatment requires and there's at least three independent ways this court could can could affirm and the first is engine should not be allowed to make its claim shocking arguments in this court it strategically chose not to respond to the claim construction argument during the cl the district court agreed with us at eight forty six a district court held the steps cannot occur simultaneously and then at claiming that summary judgment contrary to the the premise of engines appeal brief here summary judgment the district court applied that construction and held that engine that's a speed that sandoz is one step one solution process where is your honor mentioned it's just a matter of continuously applying re and come and contend that the disc court made an error on the merits on the merits your honor the claim construction is correct so what if you one looks at the claim attractions that aren't challenge to the step of washing the preserving binding of the protein to be purified adding a solution to remove materials from the refill solution so that it just by definition that has to be a different solution then the refill solution while preserving binding of the protein and then the next step the next step is applying a solution applying a solution and that step must come after the step of adding a solution to wash example three includes adding record shows that they do every example in the spec talks and gives the gives the solutions gives separate solutions for washing and alluding which makes perfect sense under the purpose of the steps in the claim because they do opposite things and it's important to note that the engines proposals for pulled constructions of the washing step was adding a solution that does one thing function that does one thing which was wash away the contaminants you don't want w preserving the buying of the protein and the engine solution of the second was adding a solution that does an opposite thing it allows the protein to be released and captured and those are two those required to separate solutions nothing in the pattern suggest you can do yes right they do because as the district court explained on a forty five a forty six of this claim construction order for the reasons that you were reading if you don't know if you do the same if you don't finish applying the washing so that the constructions and the claims don't talk about what's happened in the column this is kind of like a red herring that the constructions that aren't challenge talk about what you're adding into the call they focus on what you're adding into the column and you're adding the to your point about to your question directly just recap when you get down to the f and g you're talking about a step that requires adding something in to the col directly applying the refill solution to the major it's not talking about what's happening  method claimed and it's and because it is an ethically supported about the how is talking about what you're doing sort of you know at the top end of the column as it were not within the call and what they're trying to focus on is is really a red herring there's no dispute that sand this does not that what you're doing here is trying to remove the stem cells the stem cells from the body so that you can give him the king disease treating him out of chemotherapy to treat the cancer and then put the stem cells back in the what does this because the pattern teaches some but not all chemotherapeutic agents were known to mobilize themselves thus for the ones that weren't so known the would be no stem cell mobilizing them out they would work in this to the eight seven a patent i've missed may not repeated lee said that the construction was adding a solution and i think the reason she uses the word adding is because it implies pour the thing into the top the word is applying a solution the term as construed at appendix forty eight is applying a solution and the reason why that matters is because if we imagine any particular point in the color eyes the materials running down through those beads it is being applied at that point