here was that it's misreading of the power reference in particular its reference to twelve no effects on male sperm i recognized the board said that this reference referred to contraceptive effects neither party argued this no recent the more recent actual primary by the way remember man is not actually a prior art reference it was just cited by the expert as being part of the broad general understanding of a person of ordinary skill but by mis understanding powe board was able to take powell and say how well it doesn't have anything to do with this in fact the board called it it's significant the word is actually significantly about how it was about power be limited to contraception in way in the prior art so at the very least this ought to require remained but we do think that this error actually just demonstrates that sea fed didn't meet its burden and that we should get our patent back and if the court needs more information about why how it was mis read here and we understand this  evidence standard but we don't shrink from that here at all because substantial evidence still requires the board to have acted as a reasonable or would have you know arriving at that decision and we don't think that's how it can be read in any reasonable fashion is referring to contraceptive effects on met not even ambiguously and let's take take you through the document very quickly this quote that was used by the board appears in a paragraph three of the patient information sheet that paragraph three isn't titled in a talent's damage to babies the st sentence after that title is this is very important for all women considering for what it might that's at three twenty six dollars of the above it continues with toxicity to the developing baby so it's caulking about a credit woman damage to the baby again the need for adequate contraception to avoid conceiving a baby the command that taking the little mite quote must stop if pregnancy occurs it ends by saying your doctor can advise you about adequate contraception and then it adds no effect on no effects on male recognize so that you is the woman that is referred to at the beginning of paragraph three damage to babies this is very important for all women now the rest of the article further underscores that this is the only reasonable reading of powe sentence regarding males oh no i was in fact i want you to draw read that sentence regarding males because that sentence regarding when we read it in the context of the entire paragraph then you should absolutely and that in the context that's provided by that paragraph is not talking about contraceptive effects of the drug on women or babies it's talking about tourette a genic effect of the drug on hate and how to prevent infection and  and if you have any doubts should really look into the rest of the article at three hundred and twenty four paragraphs three d and e it excludes patients excluded as patients quote women who wish to become pregnant now it doesn't say the men who wished to impregnate a woman it talks about women of childbearing potential who will who are not will not or cannot take contraception in paragraph five it talks about women of childbearing potential who should agree to stop taking the  immediately should they miss a period on that same page three hundred and twenty five in paragraph six it says women of childbearing potential who discontinue treatment with little might should agree to take reliable contraceptive precautions for three months after discontinuing the little b to your point if that sentence to the board said referred to contraception actually did you would expect a sentence they're saying men do not need to worry about this because there is no effect on there are substantial or species variations so we have an ancient reference to rabbits we have thirty years later a reference that says in the no uncertain terms no effects on male sperm and of course with all it's sort of sounds funny to say this but how it was not a guidance for residents how was the guidance for human beings and the only human beings that it addressed were women at every stage o ating the entirety of the playwright is very different from dr food and didn't take any account of the statement in his declaration at all he didn't he simply said here's man and he says man says arguments they've been made by the parties completely eliminated giving any weight whatsoever to all by reading it in a way that made that statement irrelevant the only other point i want to make on this leave the claim construction issue briefs unless you have questions but with regard to the claim construction the only thing that point you to is the discussion of sloan which couldn't be clearer that it's referring not only to centralizing information but also centralizing the media  and finally the secondary considerations the board gave incredibly short shrift to the secondary considerations here the prior art the the programmes for accutane the program hundred adverse offense out of slate slightly under one hundred thousand prescriptions again while plea satisfactory here the board said well there were four exposures  actual normalities here and said that's not enough that's pretty much like this going to mitchell that's not good enough that your secondary consideration which this court has said in cases like trans ocean and others is so important to bringing the real world of obviousness to bear on things and the board simply refused to do that here i think i've kept my promise that i'm giving you back some time you i actually think what the four recognise is that powell is not clear and i would get to that why i think it's unclear but i think st off what the board found was that looking to the evidence that it had before it at page seventeen of the record what they say what the board says is that that isolated statement and towel standing alone doesn't defeat the sufficiency of petitioners evidence so after it went through petitioners evidence it said regardless of what  go looked out but what it went on to say was that even when we looked at powell with think it's unclear and i think what they're reading is actually not is a fair reading looking to  women and i think that's exactly what i question counsel said it's directed to women and it goes through and talks about contraception and it gets to the end and it says no effect i mean are you reading from again i'm sorry page three hundred and twenty six of the record yes three yes so it starts out talks about damage to babies then says this is very important for all women and as i think the st council mentioned this is targeted to women and it goes on and the rest of the paragraph is talking about contraception and then it finishes at the end by talking by saying there are no effects on male sperm recognized we're addressing women we're not talking to male patients we're talking to women and what the board said what this is saying to these women is that when you're taking not through the women i mean if it's the sentence is targeted to women who are taking full it in mind not to male patients i think as we've that's i think is opposing counsel to great it's targeted to women it's not targeted to men and saying anything about male patients you shouldn't just decision should be given deference but the on that we also think that the board didn't actually need to get to that because it found that the other evidence was so overwhelming that this single statement in powell was not sufficient to defeat that other evidence and i just want to point out lastly that the article that they referred to about no effect which was a it's the article that w cited it's not actually part of the record but the article that the opposing counsel referred to is cited in milan and where they were trying to suggest that there would not be an effect or you you would know from animal to animal and if you read the full sentence it says it is fully recognized that the results of experiments limited to one species of laboratory animals must not be taken as necessarily carrying a great weight until they did it for humans but it goes on to say never but nevertheless they serve as a useful monitoring device and in that capacity they may alert the medical profession to their prohibitive risk inherent to inherent in medication of the male with a little mite so i think it goes much further than that and suggesting that one should based on the rabbits so these think about as the article goes on to say would lead one to be cautious and certainly council patients which is all that the claim actually requires it's no there's no step in there about actually even changing whether or not you administer  specification there is more than evidence to support its construction and it also went on to say it would be obvious even if it did sell to its construction want to send email to secondary consideration yes with respect to secondary consideration to think it's important  by coalition there was a study by wire that indicated that the that there were actually four confirmed fetal exposures and the board said that is actually what the claim is directed to  if you can compare that to the four fetal exposures those are different things in effect in effect in mitchell what they said was full the vast majority of those women aborted their pregnancies and then they talked about the very small i think  that the board made alternative holdings here you can't find it the board did not say were gardeners of whether this is the reading of the statement my friend said to you this is basically what the court found i wrote down or words verbatim that is not basically what the court found my friend said that this isn't clear in the board found it unclear you won't find the word unclear or any of its citizens here the closest you get is an isolated statement but that doesn't say it's unclear in fact the board quite clearly says in the last sentence of this paragraph how it read palatable my friend says this was a fair reading of it was a fair reading of powell see fads expert have come with it come up with it see if it didn't come up with our experts certainly didn't come up with it the board made it up it's not inappropriate it's not a fair reading it's not an ambiguous reference at all in this regard on the question of secondary considerations we relied both on unexpected results and long felt need comment about the conclusion we sentence by celgene representative we answered that in our secondary considerations so the notion that we didn't make this argument before the board is is demonstrably incorrect we are to this board to the support of this court we now know the difference to reverse thank you thanking me thank flaws i think i'm