think your honor may please court for over a decade the world searched in vain for a safe stable he transfer composition that would not contribute to global warming in two thousand two hundred will discover the unexpected s the board definitely relied on a new ground and that ground was reliance on the right and if to sort out where the border lies underground obviously the applicants intitled to respond to that in this case the in your reference there is no testimony from anyone in the ram we take one step after the patent owner here provided expert testimony declarations dr chambers dr thomas speaking to the unpredictability that one believed would be the case when you use an unstable and unstable refrigerant and actual test data to show unexpected results on that score the examiner rejected them in the exam or rejected that this is that a twenty five eighty isn't written by saying that the stability data presented do not dr thomas was actually evidence of the invention is not obvious and must be considered that's in the order to say this isn't what the board then goes on to do is say all the actual evidence yet to get to  this particular twelve therefore why it works it's unexpected but then what the board does at a thirty eight thirty one and a thirty three is say but i'm your says the opposite and so what the board says at eight thirty one is we have chambers however only your statement that another age of all compound also having a double bond and highly reactive foreign atoms show superior thermal stability is a fact that we weigh against chambers assertion that the results of twelve for weight and pound were necessarily unexpected thus as evidence by a more skilled artist in would have no would no more have expected failure with respect to the stability of combining hider more just to rebut the secondary considerations evidence i would say no but i think the argument now to try to save this if you will both i think the board i don't think that they include it only after the heading secular considerations of pages thirty thirty one makes a difference and i think to try to salvage it that's the argument we see back from the families it isn't because what only was being used for some years the gluth obviously for the obviousness rejection to start with there has to be a reasonable expectation of success why would you pick these two things that no one picked for a decade took them by and would you expect them to work well decade and not them you've got  interesting effort to kind of flip this around which is the argument all the evidence of people still in the uk and the vast secular considerations evidence in this case is that this is a groundbreaking step change and the reason honey will succeed is because they looked not just where no one had looked but were people were decidedly told not to look and so they don't dispute in the dock and ready they don't even disagree with the idea that as a class of compounds people thought ok even if everybody thought about the whole class and even if you have experts saying we knew this one was we knew this one was no one at the time had examined twelve thirty four y f specifically i don't think that changes anything if everyone says don't use this class of compounds we've tested them have a whole post of mine was in that and they didn't say that exactly they said you didn't present any evidence what we did present it's it's not surprising that we didn't present evidence that this particular combination that honeywell discovered was toxic flammable and still because the reality was what the unexpected results here is that this particular combination went against what everyone thought about the class so it's a bit of a catch twenty two that we didn't say it doesn't work well obviously we we things on work and what do they do with it if it softens to those are still the art they abandon it and they're only answer that is well we didn't think there was enough commercial utility in doing so they've already chosen to file a patent application if it was so obvious that the fifth one described but not the others worked so well why abandon it i mean that's certainly evidence that goes to skepticism and with those of skill in the order of time not necessarily have been and what they own believe in regulatory climate change well if we step back for a second and think why do these companies the biggest companies in the world die can honeywell arkham are mexican all the chemistry companies the world  looking at all these refrigerants and they all know global warming is an issue they don't decide to let's invent a better one that's sixteen hundred times only when the government tells them to because as was demonstrated here after honeywell demonstrated that this do i want to finish this point i appreciate percy that just laurie and then we hear from people in the industry what was considered impossible has become possible in this isn't the run of the mill we have some secondary considerations case when they were that it was unpredictable member i don't think it was said that stability for example would be affirming the board's ideas i think so i think it was just further sort of the fact that it's didn't appear before the board properties the he nor in the obviousness consideration when there are inherent i think you first start with the arg with when you look at the arguments that were made by honeywell hywel repeatedly argues that was unexpected that this would have lower global warming potential that only invokes the refrigerant one two three four way off which is expressly disclosed in the gotti honeywell repeatedly argues time and time again that it's the refrigera i i would agree that they're that they're useful but you have a specific reference that says in business when you have an inch of sea refrigerant you do not elect as you used to undersea if she refrigerants to go with minerals you collect and was arguments that then work were corrected but i don't need more need or didn't read my room you were you making that statement murray was brought into this case soley to rebut the position that honeywell taught after the fact where they made the broad statement that if your photos would never have been thought to ever be used with a package that was the broad statement that was made we brought that in to say that it's not true that it's president before the board and that is expressed that was before the board i made that argument rely on it the board chose to bring it up because i have oversold it when i when i made my lord i mean grounds the rejection notice that you grounds of rejection it is simply identifying the secondary considerations that the state of the a clearly show that people prior to the date of invention would have mixed and each a photo with a pack lubricant i'm sorry from speaking too loudly sometimes my voice starts to rise and i don't mean to give offense if i do ok i do want to raise one other issue really quick i want to put on the record my objection on the basis of judicial stop while the claims one through twenty five should be stricken and should not be proceeded with these the party of absolute representations made by honeywell to to receive the state of their case against our team up in philadelphia they said they would never ever go forward with those original claims they went back to their work with the federal judge i don't think they should be allowed to proceed i have there is no avoiding that this is a new round of rejection to judge wright his point and let's just talk with the case law says this they say it's only about second their considerations and well it was the thrust of it or you're on notice there's no case anyone points to that would say that's ok and it doesn't support agreement in the reasons are obvious because under biederman rambis step in all of them in those cases there wasn't even a new reference that was those refs role discussed by the examiner and that wasn't enough those were new hindered all things that no one skill in the office ever put in the record and instead we have the board saying well we think this sentence it says relative stability flips all the expert testimony on its head so it is a new ground and it should be a middle reversed and remanded with respect to in a gothic or that the subject the statement footnote fourteen says it was it was we had notice we respond to the rejections of the examiner that's how it works at the for the examiner and when you get to the board you are appealing a decision from an examiner notice might be relevant in i p r it is not the standard in any sense and there's no case that says it is for reexamination judge laurie your question i think it's this whole problem on the head of what the examiner did and what the board did inherent see is all fine and well for anticipation we have a combination and by the board's only knowledge that there isn't this is not found in the priority have to pick two references you have to pick two references and we think starting with these two and saying would you figure out they're compatible is not the right exercise but here both the examiner twice once rejected by the board and then the board to overcome and at the end of the day says we think  y or miss ability is inherent that's wrong as a matter of law because all the testimony is it was not known what cannot be what was not known cannot be inherent so we think there should be a reversal not just a