raised three legal errors that we believe were committed by the the board in affirming obviousness or rejections with respect to four claims in the weinstein patent those are claims t that contains the in dish and the instructions in the dosages the first error we believe is with respect to the claims for in thirteen claims and four and thirteen require that the second dosage of the nighttime dosage contain claims for thirteen or dependent claims there are three references that have been cited against these two claims they are the notes in reference to meltzer reference and the middletons reference we believe that neither of those references either individually or collectively disclose the inventive features of claims for in thirteen specifically and against it when you combine them they actually teach away from the invention  to a clinical trial and in the clinical trial that identified issues with carphone error me specifically as long are sedation side effects and then when it comes time to make the clinical trial product instead of using hydrochloride and then if you look at the combination which is what the patent office did with respect to news in middleton and meltzer in your honor identified meltzer melt there is a history of add a histamine  provides a four to six to eight hours of sedative a fact and then a twenty four hour after his to mimic effect so the beauty of this product is that when you take the first dose in the morning which is a decongestant you have  congest of relief and then when you take the night dose you get sedation in the evening when you take or for an army but it but then the and the histamine in fact continue in the next day and so you get the benefit of that for long sedation so we believe that these three references cannot be combined to make claims for thirteen which are specific to four for narrow me our second issue is with respect to claims to an eleven which required that the the second of the and i says to me be non sedating again looking at the same three references which are cited against those claims the notes in reference and the middle tense there is no discussion of nonsuch dating a histamine period and actually it goes against the teachings because both of those references are trying to balance a day medication and night medication and put sedation at night so here we have a product defense and middleton the do not disclose nonce a dating anti histamines at all and then the only disclosure of anon sedating anti histamine is the middleton reference and the middleton reference again is a reference that gives you the history of anna histamines there which are disclosed in our patent in example for a column seven on a forty five but the fact that it lacked that you get an antihistamine effect for sixty eight hours and then you get our sedation effect for sixty eight hours and t o his them in effect for twenty four hours that is not disclosed anywhere and i believe that is the need property that differentiates and creates a situation where claims to want to lessen are unpredictable and  yes ok the third legal error we believe your honor is our honors is with respect to the product claims two and four and here we believe that the patent office and the board were incorrect over simplifying the invention to be only a a combination of an antihistamine and the decongestant they deliberately ignored all of the instructions that are claimed elements and we believe that the claim should be looked at in its entirety nonfunctional not obvious relationship yes a tongue twister thank you but that the product would not work if you took away the instructions of the instructions are functionally related interconnected with both the new guy case and i was playing nineteen of that patent and there you had the exact same cat we do not have the exact same kit there is no kid prepackaged therapeutic graduate that exists in the prior art so when one both the components and instructions so what what was attempted to be patterned were some additional instructions that were out so yes in the god you had a kit you had all the components it was admitted that the kit was there it was a one of two back to your first two arguments which is to say you you're saying that these prior art references don't teach the patent adventure i don't see that you get any additional traction on the written material well i think the point is that instructions then we lose the whole point about when to take the product the sixty eight hours and the long antihistamine effect and none of the prior art shows that and that's why i believe the patent office had to do that very well we will love  gave it therapy or suppress the symptoms for thirty hours there was no correlation that people would be asleep for thirty hours there's no evidence either way on that take as to whether the short period of sedation associated with cle was something that was discovered in by east inventors or was was known previously nothing in the record reveals anything was rejected that question correct almost your honor ok there's definitely no evidence about the station period being the same as the therapeutic period an applicant as i said did not submit that type of evidence but these references actually suggest the opposite middleton said that you take chlorpheniramine or an anti histamine at night but don't use it during the day so that strongly suggests that you know people were going to sleep during the day the drug would work or the sedative side effect would be like eight to ten hours a reasonable period of time but don't take it during the day again that's what middleton says in column two and so that suggests that because people woke up and then took the decongestant that the into histamine enforce an airman is an example they're in the same thing  that says take or for near me it treats right night is the exact problem that this applicant is facing it treats right night is really well and it will alleviate those symptoms for thirty hours but those people who did that study too had to wake up the next day the morning of and so therefore it it's very much against a reference to think that people would be sleeping thirty hours and yet it still be doing those studies so these references you know strongly suggest the opposite but again i was the board found he he had the chance he could have submitted unexpected results evidence he did not the board had nothing to counterbalance against the strong prima facia case of the references as to chlorpheniramine being very effective and to histamine anti histamine at nine is for example if you want the answer has to me benefit such as say at six pm and maybe keep working during the night or driving a car or something like that you would have the benefit and the histamines it's not just that they're not for dating but also that there are other suspects that they don't have a because of the biochemistry of the of the drug and i i would suppose that those other side effects might be undesirable and in some cases is there any evidence in this record on that issue the other side effects you know i noticed no article then strike the question thank you your honor and so there are several reasons to have a longer impact but the decongestant said that while that might be your honor and maybe there is a little bit of an overlap of the sedation period from the antihistamine at night to the next morning but again if jamison had compiled some chance to compile test results and submit that data if you know what your honor was just talking about truly bore out but again the drug chlorpheniramine was being used by people discussed in these two references and that was enough substantial evidence for the board to make its motivation finding that this sets forth a prima facia case why someone would with then as judge analogy was suggesting there on your left with with this is stimulating effect which is not good now so that would suggest to the extent that you to a combination that includes a nighttime decongestants last antihistamines that it would seem just not a good idea for someone that is looking not to be awake on your honor down to that point nissen i think you pointed out during a pounce opening knutson is not limited to having a decongestant in the night time drug precisely because says that as is often the case a sedation action is desired at night and the board picked up on needs in saying that there that there are reasons that are not often the case that you may not want to have a sedating are not disclosed in any of the three references to the patent office wrong so it was not known in the public and so that's why i think the the patent office and the board has to over simplify our invention down to just  property and we specifically claim orphan ehrman which had those properties we believe that those claims for and thirteen do have those specific properties associate with or very many likewise claims to a