not the kind of case that a certificate of correction was designed to address q missed in its claims deliberately defined its claim compound through its stereo chemistry after telling the patent office during prosecution that it is important quote to use the exact quote exact sterile chemistry when designing compounds to miss kind of avoided relying on serial chemistry which they tell us now is subject to change by using a product by process claim but that would have given a more narrow coverage because infringement would have required using that process so they went broader and they deliberately defined their compounds with its stereo was an n possibility and it was apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art i guess yes i think that might make a difference of an as apparent error but that's not what we have here we have a situation where lies if you reach new territory with your corrected claim the current list of going to correction is invalid and in this particular case that's what we have if you look at the claim from the proper perspective the proper perspective is you c the original times and you compare to the corrected times what's the proper perspective in nineteen eighty seven person of ordinary skill in the are you basically take yourself into a time machine you go back to eighty seven and you say how would  and yet cuba's tells us in their briefs that the corrected claims cover the a s n made semi synthetically that's new territory that's broadening that that means the certificate of correction is incorrect is incorrectly there's a minor mistake it depends on the context right but the question is is this context one of those contexts in which it's so clear from the rest of the specifications that they were claiming depth to my son which is as it turns out in effect h two s zero four or the the ice carry isomer isn't that the shame would know the answer is it's the way they chose to claim their compound they chose to claim a break this is not off your ass and where it's been around forever this is a new new compound and they have a choice they could have said product by process if they had any doubts about stereo chemistry and that would have protected them and that would give them more narrow coverage they made a deliberate choice dispute about that in fact sanderson set up one with the may two years later what we when we discovered in two thousand and seven knowing that this was there was a lot of litigation a lot of claims we took the cautious step of saying look while it's being corrected but until it is we're going to take the conservative step of not missing it as soon as it was corrected after we went through the process with the patent office we listed it immediately what this issue aren't and i will use without these patches there are thousands and thousands of people who never would have been successfully treated and hundreds of lives that were saved because there was no product on the market but let me answer on the reissue first here's what the  found which is that depth to mice and the compound was described in four separate ways it was described as a two one nine seven eight c as mr hurst said not a term of art in the field that distinguishes product and then there is without a doubt there is the fourth way of describing it which is the structural diagram and what the district court correctly concluded is one of four gates killing the ark with look at the claim that they would see the expand on that because you are keen to me and you you characterize it in your braces being the polar opposite of this case and it seems to me that it's a lot closer than not it may be distinguishable but i'd like to hear what you're actually i think trying to free characterize of the polar opposite that i may and the specification tells you exactly what that is it's the fermentation process that results from this process there's no dispute today that in fact the asperities show are you saying that if you had left out the l y and humid in  from the plane and all that and then in the plane and then the structure then you would be on but the only thing in the plane is because i think in buyer that that was the situation if i recall correctly i think that's it's close to the situation they actually use the word in the claim i think your honor if we if we take the three buck my three buck that's the obvious this piling on the hype cherry this is just this product by process stuff difficult but it seems to me that the district court found that at least the purification process is where obvious and it doesn't seem that you dispute that all that much what you dispute i think is that the ultimate product of pain by those processes is obvious but i don't really follow that because at least in these cases it seems like it would always be obvious to try to get a more pure form of the drug your honor it might be obvious to try to get a more pure form of the drug but let me answer your question in these two parts because finding relies upon prior art that's not prior art i mean literally we have been opinion that says i'm relying upon this whole piece of priority for three set compounds are different i know they're different so what am i going to do i'm going to rely upon these clinical trial like lots with no problems no one knew where they came from how they were made and we don't have any indication that chemical if it's obvious to in this other purification process that will get you to your product why isn't that still a sufficient obvious aside your honor there are three reasons and the first is this it has reasonable expectation that you get ninety seven now that's the difference i tried to make the outset between yeah you'd also like to get more pure that's not the question the question is do we have a recent expectation of getting there and the you have is you have setting aside anticipation you have the foundation of the obvious inquiry which is a product are different you then have a real question of whether there is a legal way or because taking the the two techniques whether the district court in fact use the pan itself to supply the information on the second venue is so you know very well in your reb is it's very important that you read the reference as a whole and the reference of that woodworth were and the reference says nothing about those interpol says nothing about skeletal muscle toxicity and the most critical fact is there are a group of doses that are disclose those doses in fact in fact as a matter of what occurred those doses were what caused them and they stopped skeletal muscle toxicity issue that led to the par grayson in response to one of your questions i think mr leap when it out that the las and molecule is not naturally occurring the claims are not limited to naturally occurring antibiotics in fact if you look at the claim itself it is a pure here's the structure of the compound that we are now claiming and basically the argument is let's let's convert that compound claim into a product by process claim they could have done that before it would have limited address the jury patents mr lee is really arguing the facts the district court these are products by process crimes the district court found come is obvious in my cell filtration is obvious both designed to increase purity and the record included evidence that if you want to get high purity all you do is run the material all types of the law found the use of an iron exchange can is obvious he found that it's not even challenged by running the prior material through and deemed obvious an exchange come on what to an outside company that does this for a living where the inventor said i use my standard only ninety seven percent of nigel sickly high level that we're talking about here you have to give judges address the issues the other side raised mr we down below never argue you can look at the record you can look at his eyes he never said you know where my case lies i don't think there's a reason why expectation that you get up to ninety seven percent never that wasn't the issue the salt focus where they tried to save their patent was these my process created structurally and functionally different patent one skilled in new york to apply the well known iron exchange purification technique the purity patents do not claim under anything other than this simple concept and we know that when you run it through once you get material that meet read your question if you look at you will find actually in the pages running you will find contrary to what mr hurst essay we specifically addressed when eighty seven claims we specifically said that there was nothing that would show a combination of the prior reference ninety seven once daily short several times while you're actually this is where it's important to read what it says at the end it says six milligram four to six milligrams per kilogram without the day then that sentence that follows two after that says you have a group genius but every want to call it some of them right absolutely majority of them is you have been shown to cause a problem some of them don't no one had any idea which they were eight years later someone figured it out