pharmacokinetics of the kind of the identification of nineteen known drugs in a tablet form and their form their preferred pharmacokinetics along with the wish that each could be turned known existing tablet products and a wish for a film with similar pharmacokinetics so we don't have an example or clean or anything of the sort to a film you always have to have a disclosure of an actual production practice of some product for that reference to then be anticipating a claim you need to have a disclosure either express or inherent of all of the an evil that there is some presumption of unable are we down by those decisions carefully read those decisions speak to the burden of production no says that the burden of the places the burden of persuasion on the petitioner on all wishes this is is i think it came to the issue that iraq rose of it with respect to section two eighty two when the the dynamic drink worse of i think to similar effect the burden of persuasion always always rests with the petitioner so the there can be any question you're either as to whether or not the burden of production was met there was a lengthy declaration by dr johnston in addressed these issues that i think it's a three three three four four but i think and there's nothing on the enabling and so my first question to you is are we as a court of review restraint to look at the actual issues presented to the tribunals below and the finding tribunals addressed and certainly the issue of enablement generally was raised in the the sections of the hand except i state so these issues were squarely raised and again what i'm wondering is should  and the the board refused to address it said enablement is nothing to do with obviousness well except i thought here if you were using the whole discussion that preceded this last set of questions dealt with you're using it's seems to me that that ought to have been raised by b d s side and again there do happen to be irrespective of there not having raised an issue of waiver those twenty pages twenty one pages of the notwithstanding that they used the word persuaded i thought i understood and i can judge channel new to this that your main argument about even under the burden of production which you acknowledge you had was that lab is limited that it's not that laptop uses the word predominantly and that they also talk about orally disintegrating films which means even if it's going to go at premiere only from the g i tract some of it is going to be that there's anticipation and that and the some part of that which is that there can be no anticipation because the lab has reference is not enable isn't that part of the subpoena certainly not lab tests is limited to g i absorption films you're saying that you would agree that it's not limited to g m so i don't know look i think our position is it's limited it's focused on g i films and this is even the other side's absorption but the best i can do donna and not the other side expert i think was the same effect as was judge andrews in that the district court decision that we we submitted as are twenty eight j by our money  we believe based on the evidence admitted which was a copious declaration it couldn't have concluded that there was any woman without undue experimentation and we pointed out all the variables in lab tech there isn't any guidance person of ordinary skill new york would have reasonably expected success in combining them those are things that ought to be in the board's opinion they are not the words we're title to them is a matter of it ministry of law we accompanied by daniel hare earth and we believe that the record below provide substantial evidence for the anticipation finding by a lab tech and certainly substantial evidence for the obvious in the finding these films and we shouldn't be so quick you presume that just because it exists in tab or form we can get the exact same pharmacokinetics from a film version and we know how to build the film that will do that ok well there was overwhelming evidence in support of the proposition that you could take the tablet and turn it into a film form based on the teaching of lab tech and one of the one of the most important was the admissions by secondly the doctor johnston's declaration was all premised on the proposition that lab tech was limited to a pair or a lid ministration for dissolution in might my colleague at the bar said they don't they don't stand by that because the board said no it's not it's based upon both orally disintegrating film those are words right in lamp there orally disintegrating film and dr johnston admitted that when you have orally disintegrating film you get some absorption through the your own cosa even if you subsequently swallow the whole thing in fact he testified to just  deposition i don't think you would make a film just to be swung into that was his own his own testimony so his his admissions really undermined the claim that you wouldn't know how to do it and of course if you look at it depends what i absorption but it has a specific section which says no it medically if you if you have a pharmaceutical film you put it in your mouth and it's a orally disintegrating film you're going to have some absorption in the or but we're aiming to think of ways that we can reduce that to get more of it to go into the gusts which is clearly different thems that is different that is different from this patent your honor but the teaching or reference teachers for everything that's in th reference and it not only teaches you about how to adjust the ph so that you try to promote gastrointestinal absorption but it also teaches you that you have an orderly disintegrating film it's go dissolve in your mouth and you're going to have absorption through the oral mucosa so we think that all of those things are fully disclosed in the lamp pack and indeed these is the argument that it was just a wish is just not true study published in two thousand and six copyright date on it which tells you the values or the locks on that car right in the range that claim seventeen calls for so the person of or not is outside of the disclos is clear that you don't have to provide a disclosure of things that are well known in the prior art and there's the  old machine fabric case so repacking inherently with respect to clinton we're not talking inherently we're talking about things that are well known it's like saying the a temperature has to exceed the boiling temperature of water we don't know what that means that means it has to be over one hundred degrees centigrade that is fully disclosed from that phrase without putting that number again and similarly here and there is case law that supports this proposition that if there's information that's known to technologists in the field then that information does not have to be part of the disclosure that's going to his own what would be so clearly known to those that are skilled they are of the information about the suboxone tablets which when rb turned them into film they had the identical pharmacokinetic characteristics so it contrary to the argument that rb makes about how difficult and strange this was they were they were directly transferred related and the lab tech reference itself talks about another suddenly mule product zofran which is listed in table just then isn't that a problem unless it really wasn't presented for square before the board well in that way since you have any comments or information you can give us to that in that regard if with respect to that your honor the  of course the the board went through the lab tech reference and took all of the teaching of their reference and said you would you would get there you would get to the film with these characteristics and  that they made about were not persuaded that there is none enablement here which was the argument below that was simply talking about all of the evidence they had that supported enablement and a limited amount about undue experimentation i don't think they invoke and i want to but it was the same idea of in my wants and then have all kinds of evidence from their expert explaining how it's kind of tricky to figure out throughout its research with risk some with respect to one of two different ones with respect to one of three and we use the patent for it really in respect to addressing the enablement questions in the context of either issued this morning is that correct or is that incorrect respect for your honor i believe that is not a correct position i think the board addressed everything that was put in front of them and and my colleague referenced a question of whether they waive the argument perhaps they did but in any event the board addressed everything in front of them and found really overwhelming evidence evidence of both an able and and and of no need for undue experimentation and let me just was five to fifteen percent so when question now on this deposition about the us about some tablet label which says bio if ill be availability is an average of thirteen point six testimony is starting about what's going on in the gut so the evidence was overwhelming that the lab tech reference would give you what you needed to make the a film that would have the appropriate bio bioavailability characteristics and similarly on the question of of the need for experimentation the the belief that rb presented to the board was genie it's telling us to make a film that mimics the pharmaco kind had a characteristics of these tablets it's giving of us a list of them it's shown us what those p k characteristics are it shows us how to make a film and as an detail about how to do the film so they're saying we're still jesus we still don't get it how do you make a film how do you make a film that has buprenorphine in the once on the board just didn't think there was any credibility to that position once a doctor johnston submissions were of record and when our own expert dr feigele said i don't know what dr johnson says is missing from lab tech that's in claim fifteen and in fact dr johnson admitted we couldn't find anything in the lab tech in claim fifteen i'm sorry that was missing in lab tech so there was just overwhelming evidence that it showed it it taught you how to do it it showed you how to do it now the when we get to the obviously missed analysis you're a the question becomes well what's left here if lab tech teaches you everything you need to know then how do you how do you would dress that here's how to do it look at the yang reference so the yang reference tells you everything in detail about how to make a pharmaceutical film so that was why the board's ability to take a live tech and to the extent there's anything missing in it namely not an explicit example a putting these things together in a film that uses buprenorphine and clock some it's it's in your hand so we believe that that was an adequate one of the three determination that it would be obvious over those two reference dressed they were explicitly addressed our own expert dr minor an economist testified that there is no evidence on this record that shows any nexus between the film form of  and the tablet and the commercial success the tablet itself was very successful when they came out with a film with the identical characteristics that continued to be successful but there was no evidence that the film itself contributed to the commercial success and to to to put the frosting on that cake dr johnston's declaration says that the sixteen milligram dosage suboxone film is not within the claims that issue here not within the claims and that was hard to figure out because he listed all the dosages in his declaration up to the sixteen but at deposition he admitted it's not within the claims what's the significance of that that is the standard dosage that are being recommended for its film product so it's standard dosages not within the claims cheap depend upon the formulation selected we have a citation in lab tech showing that very thing with different dissolutions resulting from the choice of different active ingredient put on by media saying they don't argue in their brief they say inherently is a red herring and there's no argument either on corporations and certainly we put the issue of disclosure at issue below and i believe best of all coins there isn't disclosure of any film with these pharmacokinetics which i believe is required in the under the on the net money case where the requirement is that there be a  disclosure in the priority of as arranged in the claim so the elements as arranged in the claim they simply aren't there there was something about overlap i don't i don't really think that that this issue about par