e term flurry coated wash coast in part structural characteristics according to the claim system but you cited me to seven fifty five fifty six j and fifteen sixty seven seventy functional requirement is the same ok so you cite me to evidence the other way correct but you're also weighing a bad one though because look if you look at oh no they and they take this position that brief they're saying so there's two things to look at there are also so it saying it is oxidizing and then it says since if it carried a knocks so does the him tell you how the heck you would do this or that you actually are doing and and the reason that no one from mind there is no evidence that says that you can actually do both of these at the same time because you can't because they have this these are competing companies reactions ok so when you look at what  do it except for what i just read the only other thing they point to your honor is a laundry list of problems that have in them the day d m and a couple other ones but there's nothing in that section that says the entire decision of the court is premised on a misreading of i don't know that we can we believe that j m i some of the witnesses really took liberties on the give you an example if you let me  it certainly teaches some advantages of its arrangement but how is that necessarily discouraging another solution well your honor if you look at oh no what it oh no actually his doing the oxidation and you look at the anything to do with it now your honor what i wanted to point to walker which is appendix twenty eight forty six and if you look at paragraph eight ok mr walker who is jam  are so what is the standard of review you think applies to us because in at least the five thousand seven i see an extraordinary amount of expert testimony which i think the lower court relied on so do opposed to what we believe is special in the federal law i think i understand i found this point a little confusing in the breaks so there is no doubt in my mind that in the five nine seven discussion the district court very clearly analyzed  expert testimony which would cause that to be something we have to review for substantial evidence in the one zero seven patent while there was extrinsic evidence the analysis seems more focused or tailored to the intrinsic evidence yet you kind of want these terms stability its resistance to softer poisoning etc i guess i'll briefly address just some of the comments that the council made with respect to the one of seven patent the issue of whether any further i think you can take that position your honor but even if you would adopt their construction the slurry loaded first to take a step back slow a lot of glasgow is was of course added during the reexamination and as a i think in that section the construction fifty seven rely on expert testimony for the definition of washoe so that leaves me just a tiny bit confused about which one to evaluate number which stands your honor i guess i certainly agree with you as to your understanding of the  total reference that said you know people know how to put slurries into waffle filters and water went on to say and of course you have to understand the waffle filter for both these honeycomb substrates is just the waffle filters there and could have been provided with s c r catalysts but without oxidation catalyst and then he says and then using a system downstream of an oxidation catalyst and ammonia injection he basically saying and is a johnson nothing employee ok he's basically saying their invention is obvious it's a total conclusion restatement there's little basis to say in the record to say that no no would do both at the same seven case got it right and or got it wrong and if you if you begin to zero even a little bit you'll see that there's no reason and no reason that one would combine know with the s c r co