event that led to the patient clients problems and therefore the treatment outcomes were not ideal yes that's a big picture question of what that is a claim so if you apply both your skin at the same time even though if you are doing it simultaneously with vision with with application it still would result in some degree vision which would result in the patient getting less than the amount  ten compositions why didn't you make an argument that or do you accept maybe the board's response to that that a person of skill on the art would quickly know how to select the right what i think the board has done is engaged in hindsight analysis where they picked and chose aspects of these various pieces of prior ar choose among the references and try various things and figure out which ones work and we said that is an improper way to analyze the prior art here a related question as is the selection of discloses a combination of the two ingredients that's why i believe the boards calling it the closest part they would discover once they start that it doesn't work and then is what is you what do you do and what the board says you would do is go to a say you would board says you would do that not because you're trying to solve the stability problem which is what it was in town after you tested the the ingredients here but rather for another reason that surely discloses some that's totally improper as a as a that there's no expectation of success that there's no by night number of predictable solutions as cases are talked about that's basically an infinite number of possibilities that one would have to be obvious if someone was trying to solve a problem other than what the investors were looking at even if you're looking at a silly problem and so if somebody came upon this formulation because they were trying to solve a different advantages of positive team that were present in the you i'm going to help you start and i'm not going to help turns around for twenty two years if it's so obvious they come mine in to solve all these problems which nobody recognized why did it take twenty two years to get there this sort of long held out of time between the prior art the market is crying for it and the problem is crying for twenty two years all of your skilled artist says can't come up with that doesn't say something doesn't i don't so obvious why is it sit around for twenty two years unused unrecognised oh well it's not that it was a recognised i think in surrey had had provided as somebody had solved this problem earlier arrive at the claim composition and we understand and if that was so clear then we're back to the twenty two years i'm still looking for an answer on that if it's so simple it's gotta be obvious routine simple person diction actually taught a waiver saying this isn't it this isn't the unstable combination i respectfully disagree with that servant sixteen do not teach what i hear from sixteen provide in fact they both claim that they also have examples  but to put the two together and to make them in a stable formula that they actually suitable for its intended use is a whole different and will they have examples in the disclosure that show a combination of a vitamin d analog and according to the steroid they actually claim them as well and they're presumed to be used for their intended purpose and there's absolutely no teaching that there is a problem most developed there's no teaching that they are stable they do not say anything the glue that were used in that had been around for many decades but no one really saw the problem that that blue could be used to replace paper clips staples isn't that similar to what's happening here the invention was recognizing the stability problem and then going back twenty two years to find fifteen that might solve it i don't think that is what the but nobody ever raised that combination for twenty two years because they didn't even recognize the problem they have made a combination of there's three components the steroids got a and b but they never gone back and got that two prior art references and the two other composers were talking i heard that it was motivation and all of those references for making those combinations all the motivation there would be plenty of reason to arrive at a composition that comprise all three of those of the arguments that you made in your brief because it really troubles me and that is that you say that they're not allowed to cite anything from the record that wasn't the civically pointed out to the board now i get the fact that we say you can't make a substantive argument that you did make to the board but the notion that the board has no obligation to review the record it's kind of appalling to me and maybe even if we were just decided case and ignore large portions of the record just because the page limitations didn't allow certain things to be pointed out to us as if it really people would think we were fools so i don't understand how the board can say that it has no obligation to review the actual record before it the board has an obligation ignored that they didn't ignore it but they found that the intrinsic evidence is much more a greater weight to the intrinsic evidence and although leo is hard to make that argument or you start with the they're expert at five forty i believe it's a five forty five the record acknowledges that music celebrated test in particular three months at forty degrees fairly represents what would be a real to be if they are there puting value it just says we're there for the vision to allow for compound ing or manufacture but not really for therapeutic value isn't are we talking about something that needs to be stable for its intended use which is a therapeutic use i don't think i think they simply said that they don't have particular affects in terms of well as the fact that it's minutes i think the board and the teacher has given too little consideration to the secondary consideration is in this case there was a schedule and then he that meet their need covered a commercial f d a approved product in a combination that treated psoriasis they were aware of that and that is not a common thing when you're at the board that you have a patent that is old enough to have a commercially approve tolerance better patient compliance and therefore better outcomes then using the prior art method of giving each individual drugs separately and so well that the what the board said you you use it more eloquently than i can answer your questions and patently yes that is the way it should be treated should be treated that way in additional court cases should be treated that way by the patent office they should look at secondary considerations before forming their opinion on visas and very carefully and very selectively you have to then you have to know about her you have to read her selectively and then you have to know how to incorporate it into their lives were the questions i think th