starting point is the district court statement that he thirty three of its opinion it said the question is not whether use of the forty milligram dose was reasonable that's his quote but whether or not the use then declaration omitted material facts through failing to tell the patent office that different dosages were involved in the comparison but the case was of this court and particularly the monsanto case which is a highly relevant case is to the contrary the question here is whether the conduct was reasonable and i submit that the evidence in this case strongly supports the view that not only was the kind of reasonable disclose that the the that forty one four four level was sixty milligrams and let me explain why the cornerstone of our position is that and it's undisputed known to him for the forty one for work so what he was doing was he was comparing the best there was the examiner did not need to know that the dose of the forty one forty four compound is that the examiner had a motive to examine all of the debris data that she had in front of her if she wanted to but she would have no just as those killed in the art knew that the best therapeutic that the not disclose to the examiner that the the experiments were done at different doses even though the gutter was then expressly said in his declaration that in fact is the half white comparison he was making was very significant because it enables the same effect to be achieved with lower dosages of the judge says that doesn't mean lower dosage of the doctors in other tongues french testified french is their position the he actually on the first page of one of the early pages of his declaration told the examiner he was doing this moreover he gave the examiner photocopies of the exact table from the source of that examiner that there were different doses and he quoted something from this back in which doctors said i didn't tell the examiner in the sixty so being he not only  need not accept the evidence he weighed the evidence he reached the wrong conclusion and we undock to use that as it needs an opportunity to get these where the judge and explain his position to explain why he picked is that those data information the hero leading the side was ok that our position is it was not necessary for the examine it you know that forty one forty four was and sixty and the reason it was not necessary evidence and we've explained it the judge in the in the judge's analysis the judge never even mention the fact that we had provided sixty milligram degree data the judge never mentioned the fact that d hours if you use those numbers we came up with two and in fifty percent that number it turns out to be a accurate but even but that's not an issue in the case it turns up and there's a ring errors made that don't really go to in the sixty milligrams set as billed swing the ram said a potentially relevant if the examiner was interested in all she had to do was she had all the data in front of her he didn't make any difference whether she knew  fact was the withholding with no insight of sixteen which i think is really explained why is that imagery of events and i think that's an event try thank you thank information for the claimed product they state in paragraph two under identical dosage conditions intact heparin injected intervene easily possesses a half life approximately zero point six hours so they're saying under identical dosage conditions if you move on to paragraph three that's when they report the when the product was prepared according to the process described an e p for one four four they do not  about that that comparison is made and identical those conditions they say nothing to go on paragraph four that's when they come back and give more data based on the claim from that state a second study a different dose particularly in light of the statement in paragraph two take a look also at the forty milligram dose reported in paragraph one the use a four and a half hour time frame for the percentage for the in sixty milligram dose they use a three point seven hour time frame in paragraph four for the forty milligram dose to use a fork and half hour time frame so they consistently use four and a half hours when they're talking about a forty milligram dose when they get a twenty milligram dose you can see they use three point nine and look at my pinky on it paragraph three they chose a four and a half hour time frame to compare the reader is led to believe that more digging on is at forty milligrams because they're comparing four and a half hours to pour in half hours that's the gist of what's going on and is this paragraph six was partly take the reader exactly down that road and they continued that same basic misrepresentation throughout the entire prosecution the past because every comparison every argument they made to the examiner was comparing the forty milligram dose to what because amber did not know was the sixty milligrams it was smart to be on even the statistical analysis at the end was based on the forty milligram study not this not statement that why would you say someone skilled in the art always compares the therapeutic dose why would you say in paragraph two under identical dosage conditions you wouldn't say a number also the claims in this case claims twenty four twenty five twenty seven twenty eight thirty all related to treatment none of them were limited to any specific dose there was no disclosure in the past have any preferred dose the data on a twenty milligram study and on a forty milligrams but it doesn't distinguish between one doesn't say well this is the preferred therapeutic dose so there is nothing that supports this litigation only have to draw inferences that are permissible or reasonable you don't have to draw every possible in print and even if i'm reasonable the district court got it right in saying that this are these arguments about leaning prefer therapeutic dose have nothing to do with the fundamental failure to disclose that more thinking on was at sixty milligram dose back where the examiner was misled so it's these arguments are not material to the issue of intent to judge would not welcome the but the point that mr hughes on was making that in his declaration he disclosed he was using lower doses his speech he didn't say that at all in fact when you look at what he examiner that there was a difference of speed this is just not supported by what he actually was in fact saying and the other interesting point on that is that the sixty milligrams means the same thing in english and in the dose and get the same effect as the prior art so he's only disposing essentially supposing that i have now i'm telling you i've got the same dose but because our half life is so much greater i can lower the dos bad was it sixty milligrams because back in and of itself prevented the examiner from making a comparison with the sixty milligrams dad in relation to the claim product when you compare those two sixty's sixty's you compare the sixty's sixty there is no difference there is no two hundred fifty percent difference that basic statement is not true when you compare sixty to sixty making the comparison they say she did this examiner was being very diligent you can look to the prosecution history and she was repeatedly saying to them time and again i don't see that there is a difference here in the data if you present any and that was the forty sixty data fifty two it says column two beginning in line fifty eight says for example the mixtures of the president mentioned exhibit a half life longer than another no preparations and not making the broad statement that it is otherwise those independent studies that they report that they rely on in their green that that talk about those independents one of them is the one nine hundred eighty six freidman article and in that in that article he actually purports data for a twenty to forty comparison forty to sixty and then a forty eight in forty eight study  support whatsoever the record for that and and and as big as the examiner pointed out i mean it's i'm sorry as the judge pointed out they relied on the sixty milligrams study for the claim composition example set which would be inconsistent with all these arguments that they're making you know they think they fight to the basement on appeal for the first time that expert declaration of this dr white if you look at his declaration if you consider it all he does is  had they told her that more deion was actually in sixty milligrams and she would have made a comparison sixty sixty when there's no big difference then they may have had to come back and justify that comparison to the exam in the first  a record of how it's made the argument that we don't dispute the use of the preferred therapeutic doses and so on and so forth actually that's not correct there's just no evidence to support that that's in fact the case there's plenty of support of the record that you compare the preferred therapeutic doses the barrett dawson freeman articles all say that and if you look at age thirteen fifty seven to paragraph two have example six and said that that mentions that under democrat doses dosage conditions and those words weren't used in her rest three or four independence of the breakup was if you look at those pages thirteen ninety one fourteen thirty seven of which you will see that they indeed do support our he said there's no support for bleeding while the support seuss and on point after point after point and i suggest all of this discussion everything you've heard from mr here reinforces the notion that there are enormous disputed issues