good morning there are others in the last case you heard a lot of discussion of extraordinary but we do have something extraordinary here today and that's what the district court did here on page fifty seven of the blue brief you say in granting quoting  granting judgment as a matter of law the district court also claimed that neither it nor this court ever considered whether example one separate from the rest of vite in here inherently into space did the district court let you argue that example in one was missing any of the limitations of the asserted claims of trial he did not the district court said that while quote all agree that violators vite right eat right right ok all agree that fight this nice pressley teaching method of deposit control close quote that doesn't matter quote if the source of the prior art recognizes the inherent result assuming that  vantages of certain and zines are later discovered why should we find that element not ma least in the beaker on the benchtop in the lab you can't have the pasts of fight it you cannot reduce the formation of positive or if you don't know if there are any deposits to be that were forming at that time because we don't have that evidence here it which would support a conclusion that what example one says happens on the bench might not concentration the way that the equipment runs the equipment and if you're talking about relocation in more than one place that there's more than one part of the plant that's correct which is not shown  dick acid or fight against it solves later in the process when you get to the beer column or the other heat transfer equipment so if you could in an actual fuel ethanol plant reduce all of the fight against said because that was that wouldn't be what it would have to be otherwise it's not but you see what i'm saying that is correct but also by doesn't have any of that downstream equipment so yeah but if you it and less you had doubt that is not used by any plant we don't have any evidence about if you took the example of it took example one actually put it in a plant what would happen i thought there i thought there is some evidence in the other side say that it gave its stuff to various france and this is what happened i think i realize that your zero evidence is not the standard but i thought you said there is no evidence didn't they say  the accused product we gave it to someplace got rid of all the photographs of them so what they said was they were comparing the infringing plans and this is the only evidence they have they didn't do any independent testing but what they said is well we know that the infringing plant got deposit reduction when they used by taste and mentor which is not example when they used certain dosage and they talk about overlapping dosages in the ferment or in the plant we know that they got deposit reduction but there's lots of different variables which their own expert concedes and admits that there's many variables and you have to land on this right combination of the letter and what variable that's not listed in example one might change the result when you don't use a glass speaker but do it in a plant first there's a presence of metal we don't know what that will do did your expert testified rush or did your expert testified to that i don't testified when asking whether whether what amount of my tastes would reduce deposits enough that you would actually see a reduction in the positives and he said without going through those variables and fixing them at a particular site knowing where the system generality not specifically focused on example one and since example one is the only thing that matters here it's not helpful in my current way of thinking about it to say well if you do stuff that's not example one who knows plants in the picture if you take example one with the ph and the temperature and the proportion and put it in some fuel ethanol equipment in a plant what facts about that change might lead a jury to conclude what concrete that under no circumstances part of that which that you won't have the same result that you got on the bench which is all the god as a result of which no matter what happens downstream you're not going to get to write it as it caused the past because it's the materials not there so if i understand your question correctly you're saying if you basically took the fact maybe it's the metal maybe it's the metal in that maybe it's that you can shake a beaker and get it nicely distributed and you can't shake a giant giant that more than mixing is not good but i'm looking for something specific to understand why that might not be the same result getting rid of all the fight against treat ok so that example one is are some evidence that says that temperature won't necessarily produce the same result in the plant again you're focusing on the specific temperature which is one limitations that the ph by the ph is very important or you talk about is the ph in the beer trial and there's nothing in example one that even talks about of your column much less what the ph in the beer c to want to talk about something that went to your point which is what did not design say about example one because it is their burden to prove inherent as a patient by clear and convincing evidence and here this court has already addressed this issue and said we had evidence of that and more importantly the district court overturned the jury's verdict so you have to say was there no reasonable evidence whatsoever that the jury could have found that no won't inevitably do it so i would say two things to that one this is like the parable in the case where the parrot calmly said the question is not whether if you applied this lotion to sunburn skin that it would actually talking about one or two you're talking about prior invention of something that is not expressly disclosed so it should be a high burden and it is a high burden and as i said it's like caricom so that's my first point on that  second point on that is that again these variables are very important and their expert even conceded that you have to have exactly the right combination so you're really picking and choosing from other parts of vite in terms of you know if plant well the whole disclosure of by figure one is an ethanol production plant that were as example one applied in a plant off example one uses corn patch from a plant at the laboratory chemistry is done in a laboratory but the point of doing a laboratory is to show what would happen in the plant and there was zero evidence at trial that example one would not work in a plant this really wasn't their witnesses did not specify any concrete condition in a plant that would say this condition even if you did everything else an example one would still not tell you that all the fight against it is gone why isn't it enough for the jury to say we just have uncertainty about no first signs expert testimony on that subject smallest dosage and the fightback this goes back to what the jury told the jury was told rip repeatedly by u s waters that it didn't matter whether example one worked because just one of it would it's well that's a wild guess that's not clear and convincing so there's no dispute that example one would work their argument was example one did not prove that the lowest dosage the point  we're not sure that the two pages that you mentioned before twenty nine thank you or three zero four seven say that if you did example one in a plant two you'd get rid of all the fight against it i thought they are simple he doesn't say anything about moving it from a beaker and a bench to pay back in a plant he's talking about what would happen in a plant if the reporting i don't see think one being fired we're seeing in a plant part to be because the fight example with done in a class beaker somehow it's not indicative of what would happen in a metal tank there is no evidence of that and in fact the evidence is just the opposite how do we know that we know that because by how much a fight taste by how much fight it destroyed its right that amount cannot depend on whether you join the reaction in a metal tank or a glass beaker or test to write their own pa defining that a unit is confirming that the chemistry works the same wherever you are reacting otherwise that is nonsensical and is consistent with the pattern itself which does the experiment  us can i ask you this question if we were to conclude that the district court jamie was wrong about this anticipation question the blue space saying reverse the j model and reinstate the verdict your conclusion and your read brief news don't reverse affirm is there something left to be made that were contrary to the law right they argue and put on evidence that every inviting them fight much with the part that was the case throughout that was improper we objected we move mash i would note that the expert did not say nor did our experts at mit that the conditions of example one would ever much less always reduce deposits if applied