for physiological ph a focusing on superficial similarities between the part or clue could go on and she'll be too not the material differences as required by crampy dear third the board erred by summarily dismissing secondary considerations when the invention make the border misread osterberg kornfeld and then applied its erroneous findings readings to find predictable obviousness it seems to me one of the difficulties you have so maybe you can incorporate responding to this and what you're about to tell us what you've got a battle of the experts here and it seems like dr pao mary it which was the other side's expert right yes the board seemed to credit what he said his observations and his conclusions now you may disagree with hindsight there's nothing in the record if you can rely on other than his own opinion that would lead one to where he went without hindsight for example osterberg talks about generally amino acids as being general stabilizers right and there you can't from that statement alone you can't predict which amino acid will work for any particular protein progress all about obvious to try there's a whether there's a motivation you don't need proof here that the other side did need proof that it would absolutely one hundred percent work and it was entirely the result was entirely there we had just talking about whether or not there would have been and motivation to try based on these right and what we're saying it was not predictable based upon will what osterberg told you about histidine and what kornfeld told you about g fact finding about whether the expert was right or wrong that's up to the mark it gets the point that the findings that the board made were clearly erroneous based upon what the what the it's the wrong reference or it's not clearly erroneous is substantial in their expert and you each make your arguments and the board evaluates those two and picks between them or comes up with some combination of that but the error of law was that he did not do a grander said was to look at the differences between the prior art and the present invention what he looked at were superficial similarities the differences are overwhelming in favor of the fact that it's not obvious the similarities were relevant they were irrelevant in fact in the irrelevant and long underground the deer didn't he recognizes that there were some similarities he recognized some similarities yes but the similarities were irrelevant he recognized similar name similar family similar number of amino acids that's only recognized however the difference is that he did not recognize and didn't explore even testified he did not go to that work differences in optimum ph differences and so well you billeted and you  place what is it that you can point to as evidence something that's evidence based that can tell us that the board was wrong here because it was quite clear that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that these differences whatever differences you want to point that would make a critical difference to a skilled artist and in choosing what kind of them you know said what kind of  to the effect of and greedy and in order to stabilize it for long term storage cleland tells you that the most important thing to look at the most important thing to look at for any kind of stable six any kind of formulation metal ions seal in a metal scavenger and the present formulation is not a metallic protein so you don't need an enemy no acid that stabilizes metals there's nothing there that says out over to corn felt kornfeld is directed specifically to glucagon the only reason why you would take the teachings of kornfeld and apply them to g o p to or lie to p two is if you found some substantial similarities or that the differences between glucagon and g o p two are not significant are not material but that's not the case dr  simply superficial similarities same names that's nonsense same family so what they're up there are fifteen other proteins in that family also they're not no one contests but that the primary could not testify they could stay below w guess you're saying why would you i mean another who way of asking the question is why wouldn't because if you put another bufferin right then you have buffer competition you may ruin the buffering type capability of phosphate and even if you would try there's no expectation of success but that's that's because and also it was explained in the carpenter article and in the carpenter book chapter that you needed a detailed knowledge of the protein as a prerequisite to making choices and other words even if you had this list of experience and this was the greatest histidine was the greatest stabilizer in the world which it isn't it's like everything else for anything that we might use it for so that there's hundreds of them but if you want to use a buffer that's a good indication use it if you want use it a metal ions stouter that's a good indication to use it but without detailed knowledge of the protein itself which is g o p to here and that was not anywhere in the prior art that was in our patent right there was no way why would you go from glucagon to g o p to there's no rational reason to go from glucagon to g o p to other than the fact that they have the same name and come from the same family now even dr palm area who said oh there's a sequence in the larry he ran away from relied upon for similarities didn't mean a thing and he never ever look and act ways which were very important he could not show we have to look at the differences between would be gone and she'll be two and he never ever said that the differences were not significant what what this is just my last question should be what is the evidence in the record that tells me that the degradation pathways are critical i because the board did not give any any credit to the fact that there was a long felt need or that there was commercial success however the millennium case that that this court decided in  july clearly shows that it's right on point and that this was this invention it's expected make gattex a commercially viable product it was not viable on the active alone was not a