should chase of priority in the original suggestion of interference second intervent fully address the issues raised in the show cause order even though no further showing was required and third the board was page which you suggested was the corroboration for the reduction of practice the problem was much of the notebook page was written in german you didn't submit a translation as required by regs and you redacted a lot of stuff in that document including the dates so how is the board supposed to know what date for example that corroborates william's claim to reduction of practice in this declaration when you put aside whether they should have allowed you to stop them and the record whether you proved good cause let's just post first focus on only what they had in front of them absent your attempt to supplement and that's what they had t notebook page in german was redacted dates i've given that i reviewed that for substantial evidence on their fact findings with regard to what that document teaches i don't keep german i can't see through the blackout context is accepted practice and p e p s seven fifteen point seven eight spells out the process as long as there is a statement that the activity occurred before the critical date you are entitled wrong to require corroboration of your claim date that suggestion means mr williams statement in the declaration about his date should stand alone and be enough and not require corroboration as to his claim date is that your position that the regulation requires nothing more than his declaration to establish the date your honor first of all it's ms williams women in that are so we believe that we complied with the now we think the statement in the unit in that our declaration satisfied that in addition the laboratory note did provide corroboration of the date if you look in the study number at the block right below the project title particular legible underscore zero one and from that they were supposed to assume that this was something that was produced in two thousand and six yes your honor that's what i'm referring to two thousand and six is the year before but you understand  is what declaration did you submit that would say that someone of ordinary skill in the art would understand this to be a year versus they don't or there is no declaration supporting that but the documents speaks for itself this is a physical is this is what judge moore was referring to those days redacted for purposes of the suggestion of interference and again that's accepted practice so that our opponent does not have an unfair advantage in understanding our game but there's got to be something else in the declaration that corroborates we get you you can't just redacted date and say corroborates there's got to be something else evident within the the document that itself would corroborate a latin that refers to catch lee in addition we have the table of data the first row of the first column again you see the compound number that's reflected in the title h two five two seven twenty three don't even understand what this is going to the point is this laboratory note the page when viewed through the eyes of one of ordinary skill in the art provided sufficient information to corroborate the liam's declaration except for the date so i w before was you probably want to switch to a different argument so yes it is three things you want to cover in this oral argument you have not persuaded with regard to the date nothing personal it's the facts that you're stuck with so you might want to move on to a different argument could you have three different months ok in the event that the court does not find a prime and thinks a case based on the suggestion or in the combination with the information provided in response to the show cause order then we need to deal with the last sentence of  want to d to under that rule the board me authorize a party to file a motion to challenge accorded benefit in or that requested such a motion for interference count poor reasons first the board did not even consider the merits of internet argument if you look at appendix eight foot no two the board even states we have not considered the merits of these argument w that the board decided to put in the declaration if you change the count you're changing the analysis for the constructive production of practice it doesn't make sense i mean how can you expect internet to put an explanation in its  itself the rule refers to accorded benefit benefit is not accorded until the board makes a statement in the declaration so as i said when the board recall when the board did accord benefit actually want a species in that matters here you don't know if you have a constructive reduction to practice until you compare the application to the counts the application must have one embodiment corresponding to every element of the can out if the count changes so does a constructive reduction to practice analysis additionally the board's decision on the rule to a to do to request was arbitrary response to a show cause order i mean if your whole argument on that is that somehow you were pushed for time but wasn't worth those time problems all self imposed when you knew about this long time ago well declared between the third party and dupont and that is the reason why no action was taken at that time it was surprising when the patent office decided they were not going to declare that interference and instead issued a notice of allow dupont application at that point in her vet had the conference with the exam there during the conference the potential for an interference between the internet application and the dupont application  again in the suggestion of interference an applicant is required to propose account all right account that were progress propose included a tremendous number of practice that changed entirely when the board issued declaration instead of adopting the large genus they picked one single compound compound eleven dash one it turned into a s now when you're deciding whether or not an application corresponds to the count your target is much smaller and if you look at the reason that you're well into your rebuttal time do you want to use it all up well if there are no further questions submitted initially by invent it uing the war drools which are well known publish they clearly did not follow those rules and there was substantial evidence to support what the board and we all know that substantial evidence is in many ways a misnomer because all it really means according to the courts is more than a scintilla of evidence that's a phrase we all heard for your first semester of law school and while no one ever quantified it for me we never explained to the board that is an argument that appeared for the first time in the brief before this court aborted didn't have the information they could not possible have interpreted that those four numbers as being indicative no where could this court is or statement of who this person who are skilled would be it's not the fun presumably someone with some relative knowledge of chemistry with the precise parameters are unknown and unexplained and what this make clear we are not conceding priority we do believe one of ordinary skill we are would be able to look at the contents of this letter to a record and understand the test that was conducted and the results that were obtained without conceding that if you did make certain that is the board's job the brown v barber side cases cited in our brief say the board is charged with the expertise appropriate to the invention under the examination one of the ordinary skill in the arts in english language speaking suggesting a motion to change the accorded benefit as set by the board in the declaration we could not have made that request that analysis or that motion until we have the declaration and knew