see that that's and potentially unstable want it so easily remedied and that's why we said it should be selected we come down in the first place on with the reason that it was the most highly potent compound in that list atoms only carbon would solve that problem only the math and substitution and it was an easy fix to do this is understand at least part of your argument is predicated on the theory which is supported with potency now why then would you throw one of those who in this haters of you see out the window in favor of simply having the one well i understand your ones that are good do have nitrogen in the does say that the results this is ninety four documented the excellent protection can be achieved by incorporation of the basic alpha carbon i discussed dr roush and your argument that he failed to account for physiological influences such a solvent molecules in water or binding site interactions but and substantial evidence for it but if we put out that there is not the board when through simple fact findings that weren't supported they have some and that makes some analogous comparisons between compounds and we point out in our opening brief and in the reply why those were in apt for example one of them was putting the words of but you can simply put two oxygens to get you can substitute an oxygen there well the fact of matter is director or the board in this case and not a statutory right and in this case the way they described themselves was an understudy yes there are a party under three fifteen but their role in but the question i was going to raise is once three dell is regarded as a lead compound why would someone skilled in the art have changed that and i'll go back to where just price and important to have a an ambien and the nitrogen at the alpha carbon in order to get good activity why would someone change that and there is no reason  someone changes and mr parmalee referred to a small reduction in potency there's no evidence as to what the reduction in potency would have been that number that they put in there in their grief it didn't do that the evidence well it looks like maybe i misunderstand the record here but i thought that the argument about the small difference in potency was with respect to the comparison between compounds three into it that which was to say that when you go from the nitrogen to a c h two group at the alpha carbon site you have a reduction in activity but it's a very small point relative the box in metal which is what they're saying here but there was no evidence as to what effect that particular substitution would have on the stability point your honor the only one of the inference just one might draw from b out there is none the only evidence of stability is in the co ninety one paper this is a day twenty four zero six of twenty four seven which says it's right at the top twenty four seven that these compounds are stable that is the only they only have a dense we do know a little more than that we know that that compound which is called stable in the cone aber is  injected into a mouse that they were able to measure the effects that that had if you would think that that would be some evidence that it was stable but my point is they put in no evidence that there was instability problem with this particular comparison the the activity was reduced when you went from a nitrogen to any of those other isis tears and the board specifically found that this is an age twenty that was developed not the three and that's an interesting question but i will say that it is we've we've lived a good this case before and the district court in this court and other places that it was it was surprising to the people who ultimately tried it and they tried hundreds of different compounds they tried to find the best and it wasn't and this isn't in claimed compound for the specified use now it is not a dog one it's not part of the record in this case in this case but it was not one of the grounds for institution but  we shouldn't really pay much attention to it of course if it hadn't been presented to the board if we are going way for it so i think we need a more substantive answers and that you have a better answer than the one you gave on brief here or there were several things that atoms from the alpha carbon was important but that didn't make the other things unimportant hetero aromatic ring was important and the nitrogen was important one thing he never said was important was having a metal wing group there and in fact if you look at the data and the only data we had there was not a single compound with carbon at the alpha carbon that was something that anyone was interested and certainly you know hearing it from from the other table but there's nothing in the literature anyone was interested in doing that not until the close of my the the point is that that is showing potentially the efficacy of the oxygen to adam to move from alpha company right and that may have had some contribution that certainly was not the conclusion that the other things that it was it was both things nobody ever said having a carbon at the alpha carbon and having a hetero atom removed by two atoms made a good combo and you're looking at what two things one what would a person of skill the error have come away from looking at what was in the prior art and second more importantly what did the board found and the board considered both of those things and it found that there was that there was no reason and the reasonable evidence of its status as a printed prayer or a publication at the time because much of that evidence was under seal it to discrete court and it didn't become unsealed until after the board had already instituted it then it's not it's not 'll have to check to see if they mention the legalities says i believe they ignore it completely which we think is