whether the cited combination of prior art references genuinely discloses or suggests every claim feature as required for each of the pending claims we believe the answer is no hope to establish the following three point there are hundreds or thousands of treating agents reading age of formulations designed for injection to a patient for one reason or another second point is that the specific claims the claims the pending claims at issue one require a specific narrow combination among a few other elements in the claims they all require that they all require treatment container of treatment where the treating agent is one of a small specific class of treating agents and they also require that extractable zinc from the closure  is things that are less than five yes it's an upper limit and even in your argument you you point out fairly clearly that even the recitation zero part per million t and it says information of particles can be suppress two three four zero right and if our claims went to all parental products and simply lowered the amount of zinc i would i would agree that that's significant but there's nothing in the record the points to zero parts per million  the presence of reducing substances there's a whole slew of issues even just specifically for this one factor and i was soon talking about a treating it as solution the nature of the rubber closure is only one factor one small part of the whole picture you've got to contain it you've particular combination zero parts per million of seeing that one combination with these particular reading agents makes a difference and frankly if you if you can take it in context that's one limitation out of zinc and it the application is soft also goes on to explain that that least that that with an unexpected result that if you limit that particular parameter in the solution in the closure of the solution that sometimes they handle let's call it a presumption of picking something within a previously disclosed range can be overcome what is the kind of evidence i don't know you think that there wasn't sufficient but what is the kind of evidence that the applicant here should have tried to come up with that might have overcome that presumption well case law makes clear that when you are claiming a specific submitted data showing that the particular combination here of the pharmaceutical product as well as having an no detectable think so greatly increased or rather  and what it taught was that it's preferable not to have contaminants go from the from the closure to the pharmaceutical products that contain and so because that is top within the prior art it is not inventive to discover to discover a particular alone how to get significantly below that the for the board they did raise that argument that there was no reasonable expectation of that here but what the board of the examiner found is that the european pharmacopeia itself teaches the testing that's used to determine whether or something you know how to test how much ink is in it and the other is i know how to mix something with a particularly low level of sick and it isn't the reason the expectation of  so the prior art recognize that this was a problem it is not a new problem and the prior are also recognized waste with cheap that are in that problem another and i think another also telling thing here is that within the end ent type one rubber closure as according to the european pharmacopeia ten lines up from the bottom correct and that type one closure and that one closure would meet the strictest requirements of the european five appear and yet another i think another telling thing is that in their reply brief ph ten beat lippert in fact conceits and acknowledges that there were options available that would likely produce closer to zero parts really an the roberts off is made using a zinc compound so when you insert a needle through that closure without being tested there's no way to know whether any zinc can still leaks through the hole that's made by the needle where that made you know come on i'll be entered into the solution when the else but for this particular set of treating agents zero or detectable zinc makes a difference and are our position is not that we're combining that we created something new with the closure but it's this particular combination with the specific very narrow set of treating agents makes a difference and that's what was not known or disclosed in the prior