western massachusetts for a year and i'm sure she will prove as able of the clerk for him as she did for me so that said i made the admission of rebecca until he was a member of the bar and is in good standing with the highest court of massachusetts i have knowledge of her credentials and i'm satisfied that she possesses the necessary qualification on the merits the board either committed a legal error by relying on the hearsay statement in the middle or reference for its troops not for the teacher before the truth of the statement contained therein or therefore the only support for the boy's conclusion is that dyke and did not meet its burden of proof and if we turn to an x twenty as a portion of the boys decision identifying the evidence that relied on it  discloses that the hydro fluoridation of h s c to forty five c b can be carried out in a reaction zone at elevated temperatures in the absence of a catalyst miller further teaches that the appropriate considering this statement for the truth of the matter not for the disclosure not for example a worker skilled in new york would think to do certain things because of the disclosure or the claim say this and this disclosure something else but the truth of the proposition that this reaction can and indeed they did occur in this case when mr takahashi reproduced example one of miller and that's a violation of and it's not sure what difference that makes i mean the problem is your burden to prove it and you didn't see any evidence that miller inherently discloses the sprung process or enough i mean this seems like a bizarre pattern to me too that the reason they haven't happened was they claimed in impurity in addition to the actual substance but there's must be plenty of opportunities for you to get expert  do the exact process rather than do it variant of miller to show that every skilled artisan would know that impurities always result from this you didn't do it so the fact that the board relied on part of miller in a show that it could do this process in a way that wouldn't necessarily result in impurities in the way their claim does i don't see even if we were shocked at how you've still met your burden of proof to show that this isn't miller inherently discloses impurities  said why didn't you just do it exactly like miller i frankly i don't understand why either of you didn't replicate miller union replicate now where exactly they didn't replicate miller exactly what's what are you all dancing around here is what  question also is there some compelling reason like tack and i she didn't do what miller said then you would have had this argument with not even be in front of us there is no way for me to answer that but to say you're correct your honor however what mr tucker she said was that he believed that even without the catalyst the reaction would mostly not progress and that even if it did there would not be a sufficient amount of product he used what he had and it was his testimony that that was an immaterial deviation and it wasn't agreed which we review for substantial evidence right but the problem is that miller and said a skilled artisan would think this of miller your expert says a skilled artisan would think something else don't they get to judge the evidence and weighed it and isn't that it all i mean that's we can't review that i think that they could have if they could weigh certainly weigh admissible evidence but what if but again are you suggesting that the words reading what miller discloses a skilled artist would think is not admissible evidence not for the truth you're not answering the question they're not relying on for the truth of what happened in this specific experiment or your expertise they're saying miller discloses that a skilled artisan would understand us can they read miller that way yes they can well isn't that what they did now they went further they said that that is evidence that that's what did a car but they also said that that's what a skilled artisan would understand haven't if they went further isn't that understanding of a skilled artisan sufficient to affirm their heart no i don't think so you know i think that there's no direct evidence of what would happen in this particular case and that's that's the which is what they did even if they even if he didn't replicate miller i mean it come to back to that problem is he didn't replicate miller they were convinced that the differences were immaterial so they rejected his testimony this back and forth about whether it was permissible rely on her go up forty two dollars or not things to be beside the point i mean what evidence besides his testimony do you have that miller inherently disclosed this well the other evidence that should their case because neither of them had experts who could replicate your apparently and that he could have looked at miller and says here is the prior  really odd thing that if you could a plain the composition i mean i know our president allows that but now you can claim that just because you've noticed that you know in the ordinary process of making this an impurity is created i mean you're lucky your friend on the other to prove that they faithfully executed this to the miller example one and we still don't know to this day why he made the deviation that he did and using such a much longer reactor do we know why your expert made the production so that's the reason it wasn't on hand and because the limited time in these proceedings she wasn't able to get so again but her experiments were without a catalyst and just simply showing that the longer we act in length it's going to certainly affect the affluent if that's that's been put in so those are the things and i want to just talk briefly about you know dr he says yeah that that could happen and he he tries to downplay it and says that he doesn't think it's going to progress that much but that is evidence that it could happen that is a material difference and deviation from miller from from miller example one so one more thing is that i can do not meet its burden to show why the deviation the experiments were made and i think that's the other point that i want to make and trial and therefore it was admitted and can be relied upon by by the board and its decision so that that is a waiver there and therefore it once it's entered into the trial and it were to exclude a portion of a reference that relied on prior art well with anything in well they could exclude it for purposes of the truth of the matter using it for the truth of the matter asserted that they can they can certainly rely on it for what it describes disclose of course that's what the board did is rely on it for what its closes and teaches under the rules and it was appropriate for the board to do that it wasn't looking at it for the truth of the matter  very briefly judge whose question about whether it was just an impurity i think one answer to that is that you know like every other obvious in this case they and not consider all arguments that dr sun's data and experiments which sought to demonstrate her concept prove her concept about the effect the height of