once a person gets restless leg syndrome it's a chronic condition there's no cure only treatments unlike other treatments dr shaw mare's invention can be used for the long term treatment of our last without augmentation this invention been motivated to combine those references to arrive at the claimed methods for long term treatment of our allies so our teaching away argument i think is simple in its direct look at reportage paragraph nine that refers to the p c t so it's a reference in passing it says that the ripper depot could be used with a transdermal patch and i think you know we've all seen a lot of pharmaceutical ads this happens a lot in pharmaceutical ads you have a core invention and you say we could use it with this litany of other things in the pharmaceutical arts and so i think we go back again to the way you haven't so you have a general teaching there but you have a specific teaching of why at the post that or so of course we look at the prior art report as a whole and i think the devices formulations that we did compare to including a lister eye patch which wasn't even able to get to market what we did in doc to show me his declaration what we did was we compared to the closest available prior art that to the extent of the board is requiring us to make prior art when it didn't exist for example take an oral form and put it in transdermal that's not require the law does not require us to create prior art that didn't otherwise  i think further illustrates the non obviousness of our invention now i will say quickly you're on the we also have some additional claims for sites claim one that we separately argue in our briefing i want to know arguments turn to page seven thirty two and look at the heading it's an appeal brief from a two thousand and eleven appeal at the boy and the peel that led to the decision words that goes into the overall calculus about one of still what one of skill in the art would have done in the circumstances right yes i would agree with that a soul how do you deal with the fact that that member specifically it's one eleven paragraph one twenty three so it would be difficult to say that a person of skill in the art reading or employer would be dissuaded from trying the miller patch to treat other parties and so you can't tell the result whether the results are from switching to a patch or from switching from those other don't mean agonist so we would argue that the results aren't on augmentation side effects since the patches and mueller were only used for parkinson's which did not have the augmentation effect right that's correct although remploy does tell us that switching to the patch anybody well it's i would argue that it even if it showed that this particular formulation showed almost no augmentation in that it it's not clear from their evidence thirty eight hundred thirty makes the same statement as the one that appears at page seven thirty two  there is that we compared our invention to the prior art that was available and i think that's an appropriate way to show unexpected results and here i think it's also important when they talk about teaching a way in w the effect of this combined with the lack of augmentation relative to what was out there before was a that or and b the evidence is that it's unexpected we have decoration testimony explaining why this is what why this would have been unexpected and i think it's also important again to note i respect your honor's point that it's that the question is what the person of ordinary skill your hypothetical person would have done but again all over it or eight that we know that the actual person of ordinary skill in the art didn't go down the path for long term treatment of our less despite ramblers acknowledgement of the existence of that because i think that's that's great evidence of the fact that the evidence overall taught away from the path that dr