seventeen of the claims of the seven to three patten are adequately described as haitian as the record contains substantial evidence supporting the jury verdict the district court's grant of jama well should be reversed and the jury's verdict reinstated below there was much testimony about the well developed ours in this alpha amylase enzyme aren't which is that issue in the seven twenty three there was less testimony about modifying resound families was to improve their properties at a particular position the position is the place when you count up the amino acids on the amino acid and it's something that's well known in the arts and dr davies and dr arnold two of know the signs expert witnesses provided substantial evidence about this well developed art and talked about three dimensional crystal structures that have been known was on these amino acids at forming this town kind of quick there's thirty three positions right there are nineteen amino acid substitution but dr arnall testified you could in a week make all of those substitution at those thirty three positions for one so thirty three people could do this in one w thirty three people her testimony was after a position it will take a week at all to do the nineteen substitution and so thirty three people each taking one of the thirty three physicians could do this in a week correct dr raines on the other side try to paint a picture of what they were so different that they would exist in different galaxies of the universe but that was reported by the testimony of no designs experts and what this similarity here or an identity and three dimensional structure allows your honour's is that if you make a change in one position and one backbone you would expect that change to have the same effect in another backbone and so when the pattern says you can positions where there were thirty three positions at which place or say that that was the testimony of it was that it is that clear from the original application which part i don't know whether the  may be differences but there is significant difference and so a person we're going to kill me i could tell that from the sequences they also had access to these three dimensional crystals which they could be so they could with a click of a mouse click and pull up on their browser which would like in three d there was also testimony that the person of skill in the art would recognize that sixteen of the thirty three came from what's called random mutagenesis there are examples in columns twenty five and twenty six of the pattern where they actually did experiments to show increase there was to go there for sixteen of the positions the other seventeen came from a process there's essentially two processes for discovering these positions called rational protein design and dr davies testify that a person skilled when they are reading the specification and looking at these crystal structures would recognise that that was the method that was used carson anderson was the inventor of the seven year period of trial and they were expensive testimony as inventive method and and how they came up with the invention he was particularly intrigued by this japanese families so they read in the publication the three three four publications it's in the record and it could operate without counsel and he said oh that's very interesting i mean for these industrial situations i need something that is both highly  thermo stable but also we can't use calcium users problems and that in calcium so he thought if you compare the two you can learn some things by comparing the japanese structure with the other structures that they were using and that's where  came up with these seventeen positions through this process and it was detail the trial and dr arnold testified that finding these positions is really key she called it the inventive st she called it something really special and she had a paper from one nine hundred ninety nine which is just a year or two before the the date of these priority applications and she it's p x seventy six a one five six nine seven and in this publication she came up with two positions out of a whole bunch and then when she went to the nineteen substitutions of those two she called up a sweet spot she found  whole bunch of good variants of those and so that was part of her testimony about the significance of what carson anderson did and what know his arms did with the other sixteen in coming up with these positions and teaching them in detail in the specification as far as you know the importance of the position because the claim says a substitution of position to thirty nine where in the variance has increased  the rational protein design if the inventor had simply come up with let's say for us the first four written description for those for the not an option not to rouse not the rest if they did not identify two very nine and said well given what i've taught you you could figure out that even though someone using detail i mean a trial he laid out all of his exactly what he did step by step in this process i suppose you could have enough written description in your patent laying out exactly what he thought to then have written description for more police courts this is a question of fact or law it is a question of fact but we have a jury that made a decision here right in deed we do what is the standard that one has to apply to overturn a jury on a factual finding the relevant facts have to be there was a standard has paid those on which no reasonable jury reasonable jury and how this a judge part found if this jury was reasonable on a whole variety of other points right it was reasonable on enablement was reasonable on infringement i was reasonable on everything except this right i believe that the other jayma motions were not acted on is moot so i did i think this is the only issue that was address and this happens to be an issue that's particularly troublesome for a variety of reasons for injuries and the principal points you have a jury he's got to decide this jury was not even and he didn't even bother to go to the other yes and to cite the the realm of the evidence on the relevant facts was beyond dispute and the applicable law is clear so that no reasonable jury could have found that this written description was adequate we heard a lot of discussion here for the last fifteen minutes never mentioned the claim written description is all about the invention later claims the invention waiter claimed is a very specific combination of righty features that have been cherry picked out of a very broad generic disclosure it requires a specific backbone the b s cheat which is not described as preferred that disclosure a column twenty one does not appear in the priority nine you have to decide to make a single change since the patent the vast majority of the patent is about these multiple substitutions two three four five even more two hundred eighty eight of them are illustrated in the pat you have to decide  single substitution at two thirty nine in a p s g backbone which is not described as preferred decide that it's not going to be an alteration or a deletion of which are the other alternatives are not just nineteen they're actually twenty possibilities every play and you have to decide that it's going to increase the most ability at a particular condition and that set of conditions is nowhere described in this patent text and in fact in the patent column sixteen one thirty eight to forty three it's has to be stability may be altered or improved but it specifically defines those terms as including higher or lower stability that's all the patent s it makes no statement that these things are going to have higher stability and the other undisputed fact is you cannot predict what changes you need to make at any of these positions in order to get increased o stability you've presented all these facts of the jury am all right the jury was confused because there was it was swapped in testimony working backwards looking at the newly presented claim a decade later to this very specific combination which with hindsight was used to pick and choose out of the specification the individual limitations and that rushing in fujikawa i say is error in the written description sense when you've got one of these cases where somebody has a horrifically broad disclosure and is picking and choosing out of it to be out of of person very high skill in this our own true i'm sorry you've got a person of very high skill  and even they can't predict what the effects are going to be most of the discussion that your honor had with opposing counsel has to do with the question of enablement could somebody once you know what to do once you get to later presented claim that says specifically what to do could you then do it without undue experimentation that is not the inquiry under the written description requirement the written description requirement is did what you wrote back in two thousand fairly jury the jury a reasonable jury could not have found that occurred because there is not a description in this patent of a single sequence that meets the limitations of the claim this was a broad improvement means up or down the obvious reason is they didn't know they'd made seventeen or fifteen of these molecules they were trying to claim hundreds and thousands if not hundreds of thousands of these and they just didn't know they had done the experiment and there was no relationship between structure and function that would have allowed you to determine what those molecules were they are claiming the molecules this is just like you see the lily it is just  like ariad they are claiming molecules and always disclosed is a plan or a method of how to make them sure the art was developed sure the tools were available sure people could do these experiments given enough time but people the critical fact and its undisputed they could not know without making and testing what these molecules looked like that would have increased almost ability without doing it and that is the classic second prong of written description that we see repeatedly in the decided cases like boston scientific where somebody has positive the problem to be solved and outlined the experiment and left for somebody else to do the hard work of actually coming in and determining what works  testimony wasn't worth it and has goaded to come up with this took about six months and the fact of the matter is when we're talking about written description the issue is not could you do it the issue is not one of woman gets to be supplemented by all kinds of things the issue is did you describe as having invented the thing you're now claiming and they're claiming specific molecules they're claiming specific molecules that have specific structures not one proposal they made it to thirty nine is not within the scope of the claimed it does not increase normal stability that is undisputed so they are in the same boat the area was in the same boat rochester was then they tried to claim a bunch of molecules without ever describing even a single one that meets the limitation of the claim and this court reading this court's opinions and seeing those undisputed facts concluded on jury got it wrong and she wrote a very well reasoned opinion pointing out what exactly what the undisputed facts are that the standard the jury got it wrong i thought it was no possible reasonable jury could ever do this that's what i meant  decision and that that's very different proposition that's what i meant sometimes juries reach decisions that no reasonable jury could reach if they understood the applicable law and understood the significance of the relevant undisputed facts there was a lot of confusing chaff in the record and you have in fairness to people who conduct these trials a lot of expert witnesses get confused about the distinction between a name in written scripts a lot of juries get confused a looking at the application alone it's that second question that the law of written description addresses and for two reasons the undisputed facts demand a judgment of invalidity for no written description you could not predict without making and testing what changes increased thermal stability no embodiment within the scope of the claim is described in the application and the application as a whole describes a very broad spectrum research project making substitutions additions insertions in not just one but multiple places out of any of these thirty three positions or you know what to skill in the art would limit the substitution wouldn't they absolutely not your honor that's not what it says that's not what it says and only when you want to come back when you now know where success lies and you want to pick and choose then you can do that abroad the original claim equally has brought it had the full diversity of sequence spectrum in it that we're talking about the priority application now that the application did the only description of this invention that encompasses what's sequences and in fact if you look at that claims more than somebody other sequences in that i mean the other apart how many other sequences were mentioned in the elephant i specific sequences when you add them up including these hybrids that they got listed in there there are something like twenty four there it's even worse than that because the claim says that claim for that they look at it says it's derived from the sequences eight six and ten and this is basically was in an executed research plan there is less to others the hard work of actually sifting through and finding out what works and what doesn't and improve our most ability and what isn't and again we are the question is reading that very broad disclosure without for knowledge of this very specific claim that's been cobbled together out of that one to a person of ordinary combination and rouge and fujikawa and the cases that in following it for the last forty years all say that you cannot take one of these blunderbuss disclosures and then whiz for knowledge of what somebody has done pair it down to something that you really were not in possession of to begin with but if for example the claim that it's now in the set of twenty three had been in the original disclosure and they had simply said because keep in mind the questions what's claimed it's not a question of finding means it's not in the streams up over and over again and for years and lilian there's lots of times you can have a very good method for finding new molecules and they described method of finding the molecules what they could not describe because they had done it was what the structure or common features were of those molecules that differentiated them from others and they undisputed evidence is you couldn't predict that you could head to make and test and even with that narrower claim which you have and microcosm is the area had really problem you have a research proposal you have a plan or a method by which you can find it you have no description of any operative embodiment within the scope of that disclosure and you have left it to somebody else trying to find what they are you cannot describe the things that you thank you i believe this case is just like a number of the scorch cases where there was a jury finding and there was substantial evidence of metabolite you know oil regardless of what view you take of the written description doctrine we clearly would agree that it covers any new matter they prohibit the addition of new matter make disclosure why isn't that what happened here with the writing of a very specific claim later in the process or there's there's no matter in this climate it position two thirty nine was disclosed dr arnold said it was one of thirty three independently significant positions that a person would recognize would lead to increased serviceability  g it was in it was preferred of the july thirty first two thousand and one which is clearly the priority application of judge below made an error by focusing the jury on the november two thousand priority where it was discovered that it would be it would be great if we could find a cox to a selective cox two inhibitor and they said we even have an asset if you happen to find one but they haven't found it yet and here  sequence here is position two thirty nine here of the nineteen column two lines twenty two twenty six say if we don't mention a particular substitution we mean one of the nineteen and then they give a to start the compounds have not been described in the specifications person mourners fill the ark is left still looking for them they know having read rochester that it would be a good thing if they could find them but they don't know where to find them whereas in this patent they said here's how here's what they are these are the ones that have increased for most of the so the jury had substantial evidence to support it substantial evidence and this jury verdict should be reinstated thank you thank you very much that