resulting solution and weather has to invalidity claiming the observed results from administrating an obvious composition goes to the obvious manner can save the claim from being found out it was the answer to those should be eno lot more broadly or more generically and it did so in five other paths including the one for knight and nine seven six there before the court as well as the two five eight four and on and the eight ninety which were previously asserted but dismissed prior to trial the actual product from your competitor i mean it we're talking about two main ingredient it is the point to person i can't say just for going on and  problem because everybody knows what the composition is the composition was found i believe invalid by us last time around that's exactly right that the composition was in the force six three that wasn't validated and well yes but we found valid a certain method claim and the district court found valid a certain method claim here but now you're saying even if those meant the claims are valid and i know you have arguments as to whether or not there is not a single method claim that includes the the gotten that specifically referring to so i thought that was quite this was getting at but i'm a little troubled by that because the bigger the other claims we have here nobody i mean the specification i mean pretty much what it's talking about the product that that is the pharmaceutical one on sale is talking about the combination we're talking about right there's no real the spear but the specification discloses the the the tartrate in the valley it forms in the right about so  and it just seemed to me really problematic that even though they've said those words in the specification that talks about them in the right amounts of that shouldn't be the right claim construction of those terms there's a real dispute about what the product that that wasn't what was being used what was being used and it was what was disclosed in the patent but in the end game was i thought i get that but in the other claims that i know this is their process that i think they're all kind of mashed up together a certain sense they don't specifically call out t freebase or the salt why isn't the proper claim construction of those products terms the one that corresponds to the specification for the common and i agree with shirley and just to be clear i mean so i think that this all when you're asking goes to the they had asked for and got a claim construction that second in that in either of those claims that brian crime oddity means point two percent of the salt and the tell all means point six eight percent of the salt produced two point five percent time aloft if those were the claim constructions would you would french these not the clients assuming they're valid and everything because your project has a point two percent of the tartra think i agree with that statement i don't see how it could be reasonable to say they can either be all salts who are they can be based only i don't see how that would give the world notice as to what's being claimed i don't think that claim construction is reasonable doesn't hurt you so make sure you're listening to my question because it's not a hostile question and i think i don't i just don't see how you could defend that claim construction is clearly correct let me make the moves from a slightly different way just for and wondering how a patentee can get both out of this claim but how in the world do you get the salt form at point two and point five and the base only form at point two and point five out of this claim language and that's what his construction really amounts but the question for the constructions of should i should it talks about the initial green for talk about something that's on the table or you fight the power i think i would agree with your honor but that the question is what the composition by in the box that is what is in the bottle and they did that the stability tests as well which is found that appendix score three one three and the thirty six witnesses for sanders also admitted that at this deposition that's what he said at twenty seven thirteen line nine ok have you done anything to determine how much would be in the freebase form i have not performed a personal assignment ok and some of it might be floating around in there as because i understood one of them to be a charge version and the other one not to be i don't get this chemistry stuff perfectly so i could be wrong but i also saw your expert on twenty seven eighty seven saying something similarly about a difference between  this i don't know the answer to this which is why i'm asking i don't know if there's anything on the record is it is it possible that if you start with three putting in point five percent it pretty basic tenant law into making this come as a composition you don't end up in the same place i e does the choice to use the salt form in a market that's larger than the point five percent have a difference than just using the  solutions when used so if that's the case why are you using the salt instead of the freebase that is the salt that's available that's commercially available that has been traditionally use then and why didn't you say use the salt i'm not trying to be coy here i mean are the arguments on both sides of these seem to be kind of hyper technical and obviously trying to find infringement or not infringement but if i'm reading the plain language of this claim you've used t all these different terms that differently throughout but yet you want us to control at the same way and i have to sorry i'm filibustering but i have to take offense of yours in fact the significance of the fact that you chose to or use the word claims i believe there are some claims that were disclaimed that use the term tomorrow mallet and then they asked for point six eight percent no they were they were point five and which wouldn't reduce to point five i wouldn't have a law that's right that would not be in france and so the the there's not it's not a this is not a case on a fresh playing field these products were in existence before in these numbers and terms were in existence before and point five point copying their india so to the extent of the success of that there's a question of confusion about what that what they meant it's about what they meant at the end of the day i think all that they are saying is that is that point six eight exercise but in fact but in fact which you don't have this freebase a starting point and this you asked the question just choose does the form you start with matter and if you look at twenty three seventy five and twenty three seventy eight regarding the one for nine certainly the four to five has never been litigated before this court they don't argue that any kind of issue preclusion claimed preclusion should fire the penalties for the questions i'm happy to try to answer those but i see my