ysteine close substrates of the reaction but is it that in the reverse we action is it a cow substrate it is still within the meaning of the patent a homocysteine co substrate of the in the reverse reaction it is not yet and it's also not a conversion problem right that's correct also so i would have thought that you would rely heavily on this part of the specification to argue that the district courts claim constructions incorrect because this preferred in bottom line is common planing an essay which isn't directed either under the district court's construction to a co substrate or a conversion pro that would suggest to me perhaps that the vista courts construction is incorrect i agree with that i do agree with that and i think we tried to approach that in an articulate their argument a little different weight because what the district court did and i think what general thomas tries to argue is that it is to say well even though albeit dennison molecules are identical some identical the density molecules apologize for that i'm not an expert in the area but we try to understand what we're doing i apologize for that to the extent to wasn't clear i think we were trying to make the point that that the th seemed not to capture that concept adequately and for that reason did not and in particular the the claim construction of homocysteine converting enzyme for example where the court required and i want to know it seems to me this whole question of reversibility this confusing and it seems to me to be irrelevant question is whether what general atomic process meets all the limitations of claim one of the one twenty seven p is really should be read as claiming substances and compounds based on their composition and not as a reactions i think that's our that is the critical disconnect  combining with dennison as a co substrate to form a conversion product as i age so what you're saying is that this description of this alternative a body in the specification runs both ways running in one way it is not within the coins but running in the other direction it is exactly and that's based on the representation they gave to the district court as well that it runs it's only the second one if not the first  that it is covered by her construction when it's running backwards but not when it's running just in the hydrolysis trip directions and then that's where she said it wouldn't be covered for a number of other reasons it doesn't mean other split the sh back again and brief time to do some experiments to try to prove that it's reverse just a court denied that request to do more experiments and they did not appeal that issue so it's want to clarify then also  substrate that comes from this column three discussion of reversibility and what they're saying is that you can tell by the way they're using the words that even when something isn't really being used as a co substrate it qualifies as one for one and so that that would have been the place to do it if they were trying to be clear and also they told the district court that the definition of the expressed definition of homocysteine come closer straight comes from back in column two and we agreed with that the district court agreed with that and she gave her construction of homocysteine kosova straight based on column two where we told her to look they didn't like the construction so now they've come in and said there's a different express construction elsewhere in the patent and it just just can't be right it can't be e defined in different ways and in two places and the reason that they're that they are pushing for this is this theory that a substance is a co substrate if it could be used as a co substrate someplace else even if you're not using it as one in your own now say it's because of this  the districts are but that still doesn't matter because you can't assess it can't determine the amount of sh that's fine it's going backwards and the same analysis applies for the close of straight because you can't tell how much identity combined with hom i think that would be a very unfortunate precedent to set that the people skilled in the art would have to look not only how other inventions actually work what about the idea here sort of by your opponent that direction and satisfied with my imitation about by this report but doesn't that lead to the problem that you can't tell whether the tennessee which is the  essay comes from the forward reaction or the reverse reaction it's sort of the same problem that we had we have with respect to the reverse reaction that you wanted to understand what i'm saying so we can't tell but they have a way they can tell so they can assess how much adenosine was was formed in that back reaction they also say you could measure just the adenosine that's remaining so you can do either one you could measure the remaining aden that occurs in that reaction correct that's why it's not a homeless estate conversion product that's right yes exactly and did the last point that i wanted to make though it's not limited to the say it's a broader class and homocysteine conversion products where they put the emphasis on homocysteine conversion as if it were hyphenated and i guess the first point is this was raised for the very first time in the great grief on appeal was never raised before as if they're wrong on all counts they told the district court the claim that was clear as did we the limitation is not ambiguous but even if it were ambiguous the result under halliburton and athletic alternatives is if you would apply the narrower construction not the bro pendent there is some in the use a fixed amount of a c h and somehow we calculate exactly what the reaction is we look at the how fast the reaction is going and it's the speed of the reaction that is measured both by the  that's what we think it reads on it or it's improper to have claimed constructions that that say that somehow we don't meet the assessing limitation just because just because about make that distinction it's not taught in the pat this one other question mr comer answered my questions about the alternative embodiment columns we did he say anything that was inaccurate well she did say that the that there was a fixed amount of s it and there isn't it says as a h is added generally in excess when you're running the reaction in the reverse direction and again he implies that somehow the assessing process is some some counting of the molecules that are being produced it dennison molecules being produced what's being measured is a rate it's a speed the speed can be related to initial concentrations of the reactants if you take the speed at a measuring a rate that is what the patent just talking about when it says that that measurements are being taken into kinetic mode in a number of the examples that's referred to and in column three the point is made that specification usually means how much but it doesn't limit how one determines how much and how this is being done is by a measurement of rate and then using the rate to turn that into a put into  rate would be dependent on one of the cameras which is that into the reaction that's generally true yes but the rate will also depend on it will also depend on how  it's this and so you know the rate at particular time and then you look at you compare the rate of your sample the rates there were obtained using known calibrat the rates are for those to know us those two points give you a graph for rate and you can you can then draw a line and you measure the sample that you're interested in and you see where the rate falls  texting with your analysis is a color that is being generated by something in the solution and in general what's generating the color is is none of these things because you can what you do is run through a series of reactions that eventually gives you a colored species that you can easily measure and in the case of the accused assaye and this and in this preferred of  reactions that generate color and that is what is disclosed in the patents and that is what the accused actually does and then we measure how fast the color is changing during a specific period of time