record we do not your honor but that so so that statement draws primarily from from the reference itself which i believe comes from the here mode of reference it labels ok so it labels this very long  description in the code of federal regulations it describes it as and i have i have exactly what that one describes it as this foray is generally reserved for those substances that are common foods or substances that are ubiquitous in nature and not expected to present a hazard to human health or to the environment contributions of composition claim list does no honan's and  be any secondary considerations here within the case itself but we believe that the u s p s nevertheless fail to provide a prima facia case of obviousness he based on simply based on the fact that it's it's a known problem in the art that bedbugs are are resistant to conventional insecticides so it's not it's not necessarily expected that these conventional very common household and credence would come preamble should be considered to be part of the clean and the reason for that is based on based on various case laws from from this for a court for example the corning glass case which we which we discussed in our brief  the the court mentions that the effect preamble language should be given can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the patent to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended t decided the specifications state may also contain one or more additional and ingredients will one ingredient suffice i'm sorry your on it can you repeat the st part probably we believe that that that and we believe that the case law supports that the preamble should it should at least inform as to what should be considered relevant prior ar in the red brief thirty three the government says you wave your arguments regarding olson as disclosing the inclusion of sodium chloride right racing before the p t did you raise those arguments before th and accepted as generally safe that the product is in fact effective against against that bugs the office never raised a rejection based on utility or enablement but the patent office  here does not did not meet its burden to prove a prima facia case of obviousness at the most basic level it has just hasn't met the graham factors because it did not show that there was a motivation to select these exam so so the examiner used the union reference as the primary preference or even also discloses treatment of over two thousand other types of insects as including specifications stating that conventional insecticides don't ordinarily work on bed bugs the skilled artisan just would not looked in and for for any would not believe that the disclosure of input would provide any reasonable expectation of success for controlling bed bugs specifically in doing so the p t o also that case cited a convenience nectar mixing device for use in preparation of sugar water nectar for feeding hummingbirds orioles or butterflies but the corn in that case found that that the problem there was not just a problem for compartment separation it was a much more specific problem of multiple ratio mixing and that information only came only came from the preamble so so  e court in that case sided with the appellants in a narrow construction in order to find that several of the references constituted non analogous are and we believe we believe the court should do the same here  and just a just war remark and i like to save the rest of my time for for riposte knowing the scope of the problem is is critical to develop it's developing a working composition  of the nutrients sores and so you know a lot of references around here there was some discussion of this about the i d s you know in the in the exit with the exam seemed to be a little tension between what the examiner said with the boys so if you just give it a shot yeah nutrient source well my understanding of what that means in the claim and from the record what i've gleaned is the nutrient source in this particular example is said the olson reference specifically says to use food attractants the idea is you've got insecticide to kill insects you add a food attractant that draws the insects to the insecticide they eat it and this is how they for purposes of this record the examiner didn't look to that as a food attracted they look to that as one of the things that act as the insecticide in other words one of the active ingredients that actually kills the bug i mean human blood kills them no no but i think when you have salt it might be similar to human blood that could act as attractive but i don't think the examiner viewed it that way in this particular case sodium chloride acids oils all these things can as insecticides and they're natural they're not harmful to the environment that's the idea and all the prior art pretty much teaches that i mean i don't think there's any dispute that all of the prior it's been cited talks about safe insecticides and nd when i took away from these braces like it would be good to include a food attract with your menards and doesn't cite correctly but the other references are there are two other references i believe here a moto has a list of the food ingredients and i believe opposing counsel was mentioning it was and some composition with he's well what what i can say your honor is we understand the law i think the way you've articulated it partly here today is that if there's a composition of matter a list of ingredients like we have here at the office comes forth with prior art that discloses at least overlapping disclosure of those ingredients and they've done that many many of them for the same her many of them for the same purpose and if the applicant wants to come back and rebut that eleven of the things that they could do is come forth with some evidence of pretty calorie evidence of unexpected results evidence showing that their specific combination their specific unique combination has some type of special results of that but they would have to produce evidence they would have to come forward with that some evidence claims were taken out and of course they would have the opportunity to file a divisional on those method claims your honor that's of course at their fingertips if they chose to do so but ultimately i think your question you're right if they could come back with some evidence showing that a specific combination is somehow unique or critical critical and show some experimental evidence to establish that that would be a different story the office would have to consider that make a determination but ultimately all the ingredients are disposed by the prior art we believe the prior art is in the same field of endeavor we don't even think you need to even reach the question about whether or not they're seeking to say solve the same exact problem it's in the same field what's the field insecticides that are safe and environmentally safe that's the field the ordinary argument trying to come up with this would look to these references and because they would look to these references because they are analogous art we think it's sufficient for the obviousness rejection that was written and from as a result that this here moto reference actually discloses a food source but this this this list list for a as they as they call it is not a list of food sources not unless you consider douglas attractant which is so so the composition is is developed to mimic to mimic human tissue ok so that's kind of where that's kind of where the sodium chloride comes in and where the yeast comes in this this kind of this kind of combination is new and that's not really shown to to have been done before so so they so the bedbugs come in and gorge themselves and when that happens that their their bodies just blow up i don't know if you're seeing pictures of it but but they make it very big and once that happens the the remainder of the composition in the local environment interacts with their exoskeleton and it kind of kind of