ok our next case this morning is number sixteen twenty three eighty can call it versus united states and adopted an overly restrictive i'm internally consistent reading of the relevant explanatory no so as to prohibit the presence of hetero atoms in the are two in our three positions of the compound argument first both the c b p and the lower court of adopted the definition of an ad that is inconsistent with common scientific and commercial meaning of the term as well as the text put aside these other patterns that you rely on is there any dictionary which uses the definition that you're urging there are dictionaries you'd have to concede that support the government's position right dictionaries that use language that is that that would appear to suggest a limitation but those tend to be the more simplistic  texts that are used for instance to teach introductory chemistry what's the more complex and sophisticated text that supports your so well not parts short course i'm sorry not part of course that's not the more sophisticated  preceding page what wade says is that the lack to bring is final three important classes of antibiotics that right the implication being it is part of the overall molecule right that doesn't court relied upon relied upon me for twenty one twenty four and the end for twenty one twenty four if read in its entirety demonstrates that in fact that in those are sick look at means that clearly do have something other than hydrogen or not or carbon in our two or our three and if and if that is possible as we have shown in our brief that it is possible to have that is what you can do and you can't do anything else for example suppose i walk into a chinese restaurant and a menu says you need a substitute for egg rolls and spring rolls are dumplings it doesn't mean you may substitute spring rolls or dumplings but you may also substitute a bottle of french wine in th rolls if if that menu said what this says which in the next line you could also get french wine you could also get french fries then the answer would be then made it certainly doesn't mean men have to the context with that you're running back to god i am i am because i think it's critical because we've shown several examples of am means that don't fit with the  governments and the courts definition and and if they don't fit with the go with third definition then then the definition is too restrictive and the that the definition that we've adopted that we've that we've indicated is true for this critical the critical point of our of our argument about why this is this is a fact and we have not addressed in significant detail in this brief whether it should be treated as a derivative because our our view is that it is an ammeter in its own right only thing we've done in the second part of our brief just to take what little time i have left to talk about it is is that if the court deems that this is in fact an emmy and the question the trial but the fact is if if as an alternative argument all all that we're left with is where do you put it if indeed you take at their word that it is a  which the product the parent product appears and that product is in the ten digit series at twenty four twenty nine twenty four nineteen eleven eleven ten is where reading subheading no one where you would end up in terms of choosing what the correct subheading is for the derivative overkill mind is in is in fifty where we had proposed to put it in the first place includes compounds that do not seem to fit within the definition of an emmy given by the court of international trade and supported by you well to be clear at them i write that some of those compounds are some of them not within the definition of am i and some of them are some of them are due to attach compounds that are other than our killer are all radicals at which so what the this statute provides is under heading twenty nine twenty four car boxy and it function compounds and it function compounds of carbonic acid is the signature functional group that appears in every single compound adding twenty nine original response to my question about the explanatory note on cyclical mates are you saying in effect that the term am needs as it is used in twenty nine twenty four nineteen or leavened has a different definition from the term and it's as used for example in twenty nine twenty four twenty one when it's when there's a reference  respect that that term the definition that the cia employed is correct but i thought i heard you say that with respect to the term enemy as it is used in twenty nine twenty four twenty one which deals with i understand your question correctly it would be fair to say that twenty nine twenty four twenty one does include those include compounds that in that attac that can toss i did are specifically provided for by name so congress made that determination about those particular compounds or how they should be classified they don't have the benefit of doubt with respect to twenty nine twenty four thousand nine hundred eleven in one thousand nine hundred eighty which are the only two statutory subheadings that are issue in this case the court didn't make it is that liberation about what the term average means if you describe everything in having twenty nine twenty four you only describe this very specific then potentially anything would fall within twenty nine twenty four nineteen eleven but there's another category so there's a distinction with a difference have the r one which is attached the carving and then you have part two or three which are touch the nitrogen and that doesn't look very much like the as i understand what you're saying i do understand that but i think the that the the text is the or maybe should just report that back to c b p that need to change to them to correct that error but the rest of the text is that incorrect that the rest of the in our argument is not a surly whether something is or isn't an amateur it's whether or not something falls within the eight digit statutory supping for an it's or whether it falls within a statutory subheadings for other because it's a derivative so in certain if i may about ten digit issue if i understand your argument it is that the way you deal with and correct me if this is a misunderstanding but i understand it was the way you deal with the ten digit it is not an m r i as you define it because it does it has something other than and air all group in the are two and are three and therefore your choice is other and that's why you put it another so you never get four disprove the court and the government's position as to the definition of an enemy effectively they've admitted that there are examples of enemies out there that are sick like the don't meet the definition i think it's critical that we point out in this two or n h groups may be substituted by l kill or errol radicals areal radical by definition means there's a ring it means that sick like so the very definition that the court relies upon in the government relies upon recognizes that the definition applies to both basically as well as secular cammies no question about that penicillin i refer you back again that that penicillin if you read waved the paragraph under where they  the government is taking the position that anything that doesn't meet that strict definition of an emmy but hasn't any functional group is a derivative of the end that takes this notion of the chalkboard approach to creating the chalkboard in a race or approach to creating derivative to a whole new level that's not with that that's not the case hard horn stands for it's not what it's not possible as we've shown as as our expert showed it's not actually possible as i mentioned earlier to go from a quill my to a t v s a cool might actually comes from a quill in a trial as does our product so to the notion that you buy the growth