invention then is the conversion of that into calling it in that if treatment if we are limited to the patent offices we should be happy that this combination of energy that's brought me but you're just reciting the claim to be tell me what is the thing that you added to the prior art didn't you recognise a specific bit the i g either to make another rejection or i don't know that i can appeal the decision that they choose not to reach from the procedure point of view i don't know why they chose not to reach that sure but i do know that in many cases where the c description rejections and they are in love with enabling rejection and it's an interesting problem because i can indulge in the science fiction deal with the point that you made earlier i wouldn't be able to claim anything no you'd have to show a scientific principle that would support the understanding of one of skill in the art as to how to make and use the claimed invention within its entire scope you wouldn't have to disclose everything you'd have to disclose the scientific principles though that would enable true that i can for example in this in a the that book because it is science fiction if however you can show the principals cognize a blow by one of skill in the art that would enable you'll be fine images why can't why isn't the patent office correct and limiting your invention to just inhibiting gene expression of i g f b p five just that you found the one of the six one proteins expression means that the investment managed to interfere with the way that protein is produced ordinarily a protein is produced by itself after piece of n method for delaying progression of tumors blah blah blah comprising yes and then we go into the antisense it's cetera which limits expression but i think the for a second let's assume that i discover that a certain factor in a blood test predicts with one hundred percent efficiency breast cancer i just take a simple blood test every time it'll give me blood cancer can i have a patent on the method of detecting blood cancer through that now blood testing or anything just a method of detecting that relationship between those whatever shows up in the blood if i get a number five or greater i know that it's a  breast cancer now i'm not i'm not going to use a blood test i'm just going to detect that same relationship by some other means well oh i close ok i disclose the blood test means but now somebody else has found a way of doing it by shining a light through the finger they can detect very quickly whether i have that relationship over five and whether i ha of detecting this relationship and all they've disclosed in their patent is a blood test do they also get something that goes beyond that line test shining light through a have the disk that the question is have they given supply adequate written description support the method of detecting this relationship t discloses breast cancer why is it that this case because in this case they've detected a certain a certain relationship something that you have to inhibit right and they've said we want the method of in inhibiting that gene expression they've given you one way of doing it antisense technology why don't they get the rest as far as we can tell and the only thing that actually has been going on well that's the only thing the first guy had an event in mind in my example the only thing he'd really invented was taking blood out of a finger and analyzing that he actually actually what he did and then it was that relationship he discovered that relationship that detect breast cancer usually when you discover a relationship you can get back to why the new information specific way he did but now does it get otherwise is what has to be accomplished is to know the expression of this particular game and the only way to do that that we can tell is one that they've said here look at this this is what you've got to work on and i'll give you one way to work on it use antisense technology but now all the scientists in the world know that's the secret to inhibiting cancer growth they all find a different method aren't they standing on the shoulders of the first person shouldn't they receive shouldn't he receives some royalties some benefit from that certainly display the cla are not rejected ones that use incense and we're not talking about that we all know that we're talking about the person who comes along later and finds a way to do it using something other than antisense technology expression that'll be after rising technology which will be entitled to full protection when that occurs and there will be blocking paths but why didn't the first inventor who can you explain to me why it makes sense that the tremendous contribution of this person who discovered the relationship and saved everybody's lives by focusing all research on that doesn't deserve protection because going well that they invest and they discerned that relationship they invented the proper place to treat breast cancer anyone who comes up with a new composition will get a new composition claim we're talking about a method of treatment claim here and a method of treatment is what i've invented a method of treating breast cancer by identifying this relationship since the stool through really if you wish to the fact that any composition which would inhibit under those claims would be of infringing those particular claims so you're really looking at any composition no matter what it is disclosed yes all right thank you the issue here is really i think we've look at quick care like someday somebody may come up with another way to accomplish the function that we don't know that's going to happen and if we do we don't know what happened during the term of this package right now that seems to be the area where the energy is focused but if that doesn't hurt is this the case you want you're looking for a case that can test the validity of the holy undefinable written description doctrine but is this the case because he didn't seem to invent anything other than an inhibition of  f p five period i mean this this could be easily seen as just let's define the invention let's look at the specification what did he invent and boy  minded but my and my little hypothetical up here was a little bit more labrat than what you've given a justification for isn't it hormone response of cancer in combination we would still be competent that right so that right now there are no other propositions there's a reason there's no on the record it really would be asteroids and technology we can yes we can you know now think about ways we might do it but it is in fact science fiction we don't have any other ways and we do not know anyone who has any other way to do it better but we do know that if that technology breakthrough comes along and if this is important enough that in the next twenty years