itself was not suitable for just rationed patients and therefore was not suitable as a therapeutic for the treatment of a devastating disease multiple myeloma it was the new compound that was covered by the claims invention that this new compound was an invention with extraordinary properties that have made people's lives better longer the question was who made the inventive contribution no we have never disputed  we have never disputed that man at all is known and there was back and forth between the two of them between the respective groups as to who may be inventive contribution at the end of the day what they recognize is it collectively because was a new compound it's just a court actually committed five legal errors like summarizing very quickly i think that actually goes to the heart because what was said in the arbitration between people who were competing doesn't go to these five issues and the five issues of legal issues are these are just records not applied discords lead compound analysis it doesn't even mention it and in fact at page k twelve it that's the first their second area of their expertise really their own they're only with of identified seventeen and differentiated really on differentiated prior references and when we asked them relates to the first which is if you haven't gone through the analysis and you then move to the experience of prior references not it then i find what the combination is it's a problem and this case actually think we would go one step further and i think i can tell you why because there is if i focus on the only articulation of any motivation it combines it's a page nineteen of the opinion and the only four things that are referred to the first is their experts testimony without identifying any prior art just stating to conclude that he thought it would have been obvious and that's not enough t so when you look at the testimony the testimony is by someone who's testifying about personal experience not prior art with a different compound and for testing it and different asked for the third was testimony that if we've describe valid and as you think through the different errors are actually related because not going to lead calm down analysis becomes a problem that's compound and by just differentiate a group of seventeen references should attack in order to justify the pat so if you take i've sort of jumped to the fourth but if i take the third so the first is a failure engaged in the compound analysis the second is not sent synthesizing chemicals when you're making your chemical many of these processes so we know when you're changing one radical it's a process that's been well known it's the result of it's the kid and having focused on the process and many many times these processes will be known to just report had to fill the gap when it hit the inherent c doctrine but there are really three problems with that the first is that it's a doctor there are ten that are identified in the additives and none of them are mandatory to live in the second half of your question there was no discussion of the patent but lay off lodging with manage all to create with the saw your ability and the stability in the dissociation properties that have made it will eighty six a significant medical advance and the answer be no and if you look at the history of what occurred in this case we had people national cancer institute university of kansas working for two years to try to come up with a formulation because everyone knew for testing it had great therapeutic potential but no one could figure out how to make it a medical and if it were as simple as taking a reference off the shelf to talk molasses asian take another reference off the shelf mannitol which were describing a process to create a basically a structure to hold the therapeutic and not a new compound it would have been done before and the reason it wasn't done your honor which i think the answer is both parts of the question is this if you have a compound that has the potential to treat diseases as significant as multiple at my loma and you're trying to get it into patients the last thing you want to do is change the compound because if you solved it could go into patients and for tests and after just so ca sion could treat the cancer before this invention there was no way to do it and the only way that the only way we got to finding the claims to this new compound invalid were to focus on the process rather than the compound to not focus on the specific piece of surprise or art but just to sort of toss them up and say it's  it's never been created never been tested never been fabricated to support is not only not required that it has said that it's not required and then to suggest that in order to show unexpected your honor may please the court the judgment of the district court should be affirmed the fact findings made after a full trial show that one skilled in the art would have been motivated to lie off with mat a tall and the pastor would form the the formation of the ashtar is inherent to the fact findings were clear that it would inevitably form the evidence on these issues came prior art to react with compounds like chronic acids to form asters so it's not as though the chemistry was unknown or unexpected chemistry in fact dr snow who was millenniums expert that one would have expected the manifold aster to provide improved stability and he cited prior art that specifically supported that expectation that was the brown and core check references that he that he relied your presentation of the actually the trial testimony has about twenty two pages of testimony from dr wrapped where it goes through individual prior art references sometimes one at a time sometimes a few at a time and what dr rep to did was put together that plausible rationale for putting those references together just as judge street found in his opinion so what we had to unlike the court okays that was cited by the millennium in their brief we had discussions of it at least five different points where specific prior art was called out so at a eleven forty nine man a tall was common for freeze the inherent result of that is the formation of the astor dr raptor also testified that as a matter of chemistry can you point to me the pieces of the trial testimony that you think most clearly represent his testimony that seventy one is the discussion of the prior art references with regard to the expectations of a eleven sixteen nine itself and that's building on prior testimony where he's gone through the prior art reference was specifically identifying them so at a level forty nine the use of man a and freeze drying is identified and that was confirmed by dr anderson a doctor lie at a level sixty five the formation of manitoba masters in the prior art is identified at a level sixty six dr rep to give the identification of the specific prior art references that lines one and two that he's relying on for that and dr adams and dr snow confirm that in their testimony dissociation pro drug aspect that was at a level sixty six and he pointed to the battle book and dr anderson confirmed that the asters too hard to live on water references and that was confirmed by dr mccubbin at eight thirteen thirty five one skilled in the art would have been motivated to do exactly judge made those findings at age seventeen and eighteen he discussed the inherent see and a nineteen he discusses the expectations in terms of the after formation don't know if i quoted council exactly but that's what i have my notes that's not what the district court said the district court did pointing directly to what adams teaches which is that the asters can be used in pharmaceutical compositions and they would be progress and table two of the items patent confirms that because it compares asters to free acids and the activity of three of the four asters is experts testified about that's the motivation that would have led once skilled in the art to have a laugh alive cortez a move with man a tall it was that that improved stability that provided the motivation so in reason for that was that there was an expectation that that free acid would be improved in terms of its stability through lapper station dr beller testified he would have been remiss not to try was a necessary piece in the puzzle to get from point a to point b i'm not sure i read it that way but certainly the inherently gets you there so in that sense it's necessary have you ever seen any case where we terms of a property as being applicable for the inherently doctrine talks about limitations of claims and the limitation of the claim is the inherent use me the natural result of what would have been obvious from prior art then that limitation can be met inherently under an obviousness analysis and that's exactly what we have here we have an obvious combination of people talk about a new chemical compound the person of ordinary skill in the art there is pharmaceutical formulator that was agreed by both parties with slightly different definitions and adopted by the court what we have in the end are pharmaceutical formulat  and they react that reaction is something that you may or may not expect but ultimately a current well your honor i would say that the reactions themselves form products however you have to motivated to do the specific chemical reactions with the specific ingredients at the specific conditions that would get your results and that's why most chemical compounds that are new and not otherwise suggested by the prior art they the practical there there's not nothing that disqualifies obviousness from the fact that where you're motivated to do something and you get the natural result of doing it then the invention is obvious absent some secondary consideration so in the ordinary cases and you're arguing this or you're that you're not motivated to actually put it together to get the end result you're actually arguing that you're motivated to do something else here it's both ninety five ninety six shaped knowledge go to your question i asked dr appt on cross do you have a specific combination and he said this was after he'd given the testimony given here and here's the reason becomes that's why the articulation of a specific combination is so important so people can know what the target is shooting the third point is that there is nothing at the only piece of prior art described for testing it in any way there is nothing in adam's the talks about what you should do to get greater saw your ability and greater stability there's not a word about it and that's why this tester became so opinion was adam's patent pointed directly to manage all that's a sixteen i wasn't trying to characterize your opinion that's precisely what he said and the last thing is this we don't think that there's any inherent decisions of this court in the out of this context that's why a missing structural feature of account nor do we think there are any that provide a basis for finding a compound inherent itself and the reason is th conditions the different solvents and you'll see from the record that door actually a host of experience experiments for the last one station by the folks of kansas working with the folks of national cancer institute that were unsuccessful at the end felt a is a new compound and in fact the esther itself was the esther itself was one the combined two compounds from before and actually had the arbitration they were saying we're known techniques and we don't we don't confess that for a second but using known processes and known techniques they came up with a new compound with a new structure do we get over that i think if you're here i think there are two ways one is that this goes to a question about reversal or a man it's important that whatever the reasons are they be articulated within the analytical framework defined because if it's not then we don't have the legal requirements to set forth and satisfied we don't really jews make sample of brown and adams we don't really know how to attack them because we don't know what they're using them eighteen and a nineteen where they address the question of the evidence for motivation combined there is dr rub his conclusion not tethered to any prior art roll which this court has said is not sufficient