compound p p g s is known in new york to produce that effect and like i said the d m even with us now there wasn't so even with this knowledge there wasn't anything in the record suggesting that's a difference in kind for something that existed and was known in prior art so how does that get you out of the hurdle you need to get over certain and how does that get you over the hurdle you know so i think i think that you know we we provided a  lengthy discussion of the case law in the groups and i think i don't think that there is a far too patentability based on unexpected results where the degree is significant and i think here if you read the inventor's to decorations and you study the data that's presented in the two tables you will find that but the results are significantly different in terms of the ferrety of the result there's a problem of those declarations is there not or at least the composition for example of a drug composition that is administered to a given subject and to evaluate the properties of that composition when administered that would not be evidence to not be considered just because if you if you look at the decorations and the detail that the inventor provided it's pretty clear that he went out of his way to explain all of the different steps that he took in in testing the differen i guess i would say we were relying on the inventor who is an expert in this field he had at the time of his decorations more than a decade of experience as a career chemist multiple inventions in the field that  challenge the validity of the scientific approach used by the inventor it seems to be to veyron and to us you know an unfair criticism of an inventor who went to great lengths  i don't think that was the question the question must be what in the record i guess you know just the reference to your land and that and that and that form which is a well known  form so i would say you know as we as we have stayed in the briefs we don't find that there was a very strong case of obviousness to begin with the only mention of of t p s is to exclude it there's nothing else in the record  that the patent office combines with the single private reference to make a case of obviousness even with that we case the inventor went to great lengths to try to provide direct comparisons with the closest on expected and i think i think the fact that an anonymous competitor attacked the patent there's also something wrong you know competitors are eager to enter this field this is why this is a big business worldwide and the ability to get these you know non polar active ingredients into sports drinks and other coverages in a way that is acceptable to the consumer is a is a big invention when we have the that's the way it works before the exam and the examiner first has just tell us a prima facia case and then the applicant can come back and with rebuttal evidence of secondary considerations of course once it gets to the board and the board is looking at all of it together essentially  that for me last hoorah which is depicted on fifteen twenty of the record and compass is t p s it in fact is quite as i'm sorry to interrupt but it but didn't get at that that by itself doesn't help you that much right i mean how it's direction you basically to those two components of the left the next remaining part of it is the link r and if you go to the next paragraph seventy six it talks about basically any kind of length of carbon chain includ and that has actually never been disputed by bear and that is a well known study of life an agent so with the the combination of all that evidence it's i would submit is almost close to an anticipation case but certainly a very very strong would obviously want  texas that i came up later now if i may i'd like to turn to the unexpected results evidence and with respect to that the board made several find into which i think were quite proper first the board found that the evidence was not commensurate with what is claimed and that is because what is claimed it is a composition comprising three different components and particular amounts there is the fact int which is at sixteen to thirty percent there's a polar solvent that's and sixty to seventy nine percent and then there is the active ingredient that is five to ten percent the other the expected results evidence was done with a different composition  where they actually added in a time swore water which is a polar solvent so in effect what you could have and what the secondary consideration evidence was with was a completely different composition that had different  amounts closer to ninety nine point nine percent of the polar solvent and appreciably less of both the surfactant and the active ingredient something less than one percent so the order probably sad found that the x and expect results evidence was not but there is no nexus between that and between the claimed and moreover they did not reply to any evidence to show that similar results would be achieved  additional problems with it and that is as judge prose indicated this is more evidence of a difference in degree of a known and expected property everyone based on a new target or date and clarity where properties desirable as as compared to p t s he said rounds to be actually achieved hyperball values and notably also says that the there are comparable both in the declaration evidence address it because i think it's important if you look into the chemistry textbook you'll find that your lampert might hold up on at very low concentration ranges but here we're talking about a concentrated and when you have a more concentrated solution skill in the art with this would now that there is a range of the solvent that you have to use where you're going to be have enough for cracked and to get myself formation but not too high that you start to get a grip that are large types twenty six was part of the record from the beginning so example as i was saying example fourteen basically calls out p p g s as the only sidewise engage in that reference that was considered toxic and to be looked at wit made criticizing peer lambert this is the first time we've heard any comment about it with our so i don't think it's fair to well i think that didn't explain it because you raised the first time you read every well but it wasn't it wasn't part of the record fact totally deficient the the evidence of unexpected results as compelling the the inventor went to great lengths to describe the testing that was done he tried to show you know that the delusions were made consistently and that this is a sound scientific basis for measuring turbidity i think it would be a dangerous precedent in the field of chemical patents to say that evidence like this is not sufficient to show patent ability but on the question of whether you even need to get to that i don't think there is really a prima facia case of obviousness to begin with but even if there was the evidence here is quite compell g and i would say if you consider this kind of evidence in the context of other inventions these are the kinds of things that should be found patentable if your father if the inventor here had found the specific kind of nation provided  substantially more effective treatment of cancer or alzheimer's or hiv these are the things that should be patent thank you thank you thank