and it really is harmful because if you if you follow the logic that dr bailey lays out is that the ration it becomes clear that the forwards grounds for obviousness just do not hold water  that the factual support for the bailey declaration didn't really add much because the us arguments were duplicated by attorney argument so that at the end of the day whether or not they attributed the argument to bailey declaration or the attorney who covered everything that had been submit my wrong about that well i think the problem is that they they treated the bailee declaration like a tree argument without giving it the proper consideration of the expert evidence that it is i mean it is entitle to because there is a significant consideration for the aspects of the bailey declaration shows it shows is a bi phase a solution not a single face solution either way there's no indication there's no teaching there's no pathway from janine over a person of skill in the art to combating metal acetate with like want that as if it was a tranny argument why don't you try and some distinction between whether or not they said this came from the bailey declaration or this came need turn the argument right what's that distinction well it's entitle to some consideration  you know when you understand that the board simply ignored his testimony as a person of skill in the art and treated it only as attorney argument it does become clear that the board's obvious analysis is really a true hindsight analysis using the it clearly talks about methe last state water stop there's there's nothing for a person to go in the arctic to go in there to add something else and then they they they really did just kind of went out and cherry picked a reference program and th ether and the classic way just just using the five thirty two claims to go out and find what they needed  sounds to me as though what you're arguing is that or disagree with them experts that they can't ignore it and i think it's clear from our reading of their decision that they did simply ignore it it is a can i think to a case like solving where the core mention the expert declarations in a footnote indicated that they were going to  especially the reason they gave is that it was entirely based on his opinion and no other outside facts personally with that were true that's not grounds for ignoring a declaration it still must be considered you they might otherwise do you conclude that they ignored it i think a fair conclusion is that because of what they said they odd that the baby declaration basically went through the prior art that was it yet but his opinion as an expert is itself evidence that must be considered  another point is when they were on the board address the jerusalem reference for representative claim three look guarding sodium acetate that's it page twenty one of the record the court's fifteen of the board's decision i basically said we are not persuaded the truth is not analogous or for the limited purpose for which the examiner cites the reference but it's just it's a conclusion they just reached themselves with out any discussion of all that all of that's it's an indication of of how the board treated the bailey declaration this debate about whether or not they gave it no weight whether they ignored it i think that any case and it was they did completely ignore it appropriate declaration lacked any factual evidence outside the teaching of the cited prior art work back to bally's general opinion testimony and unlike the cases by john cites the board directly addressed each argument on which d taught all the limitations except the buffer or the representative claimed three the word found that use it was reasonably pertinent for the purpose of teaching sodium acetate as a well known ph buffer in the chemical art