think we had a motion on the issue to have them argued together might have been useful to have a motion that we're not going to stand on technicalities we'll let you do that it's perhaps rather doubtful that you need thirty minutes on each side so don't just go with the same stuff again and again we'll let you argue both together twenty minutes thirty minutes ten maximum on each side you know just call one if you want to begin with refining function and you've got one example and why isn't this on all fours with well and subsequent cases and with no written description described which is a composite that's correct and it is our position backed the equal on apology equal i bacteria which is a pro periodic material pullers activity that includes translation activity poly genes do that and the issue here is if i look at your later cases i would look at it lou i go ahead and i look at cape and if i look at those a doctor lo specifically says when he reads the specification he does believe that based on this scripture of the right but the specification is written to one skilled in art and even a suggestion did not include in specification what would be well known to that was no were basically ice sip suggested to this court that this is again unique we really have a combination of known him since we have the cloning flies which was an unique again because it really provides a a biological it's it's a system for over expressing and and if if we never  interesting things it says that the descriptive texts needed to meet these requirements which is for written description varies with the nature and scope of the invention it issues with the scientific technique technological knowledge already in existence along must be applied to each invention that enters the patent process for each patented advance for it is pretty bad advance is novel relation to the state of the science since the laws applied to each invention of view of the state of the relevant knowledge its application will vary with differences in the state of knowledge in the field in differences in the could deploy the science that's a paper on it page thirty fifty seven goes on to say president illustrates that the determination of what is needed to support generic claims to biological subject matter depends on a variety of factors such as the existing knowledge in the could see quince it for us that i submit that for us to have at that point i don't submit that was not it may been preferred but was not necessary to identify the  again this is a prokaryotic related invention it's when you look at it you carry odds it is difficult at least much it is difficult to go ahead and you can't when you're looking at this business this back around again  we are not don't side the written description guidelines a single species k n support a chain is an appropriate situation go back in time i submit in the brief and i think  specially the declarations we have from dr lo dr bank of it do submit that in this situation that single species does support our claim for janus i have ten seconds left on my twenty minutes let me ask the court with regard to the only other issue i think i'd like to get into at this point without the interview the significant briefing is with regard to the docs of equivalence decision that was what was called the bagel two restriction sites and that allowed him to place that particular gene under disclosure teaches nothing about the structure of the sequence the common defining features of the class of poly genes in general and couldn't because it wasn't known at that time you had one example it wasn't possible to know at the time this application was filed as nine hundred eighty four whether they were common structural features or what they what they were say it was impossible to know it in the sense that it wasn't known or it wasn't since only one member of the entire bro plus had been sequenced it was impossible to predict what that with it would be common features with others were sequenced or what those features would be but the sequences in responding to this question to that this case or this class of problems that we have before us that would think is the difference between an assertion of failure written description and th it's not necessary to disclose again in the specification what is already known in the us so to that extent the knowledge and skill of the author is pertinent to description but what you can't do is say i'm i'm describing one member of was defined by their common property that they hybridize under stringent conditions to the same toggles that defines the genus as one that is structurally very similar and the guidelines explained that a narrow genus like that can be described by a single example in part because there is a known correlation between the function of hybridizing under those conditions to a defined target and structure by contrast when the genus is defined functionally by its capacity to encode for us that is a that is a variant genus that cannot be described by a single example and we have evidence in the record showing and finding other genes what what the case is called a wishing plan for obtaining those other members of the genus or else the functions of the enzymes that would be encoded by the plasmas but not the properties of the here we think it may be affirmed either on the basis that the district court applied namely that that they failed to show equivalent satisfaction of the d collide bacterial source limitation n sometimes mutations of regulator regions which can affect expression of other genes and there is no evidence whatsoever presented to satisfy that limitation but as to the bacterial source limitation we don't need to know the sequence in order for invention to work we just need to be able clone that chain which was known at that point in time put it into the class of it for a construct and well of course the claims the techniques were there which permitted us to attain those genes through what was called shotgun clone so i think there's a there's that's really a difference with with real distinction here up with regard five known through a one through six month eight one nine three two nine through eight one three three one eight thirty operation which is a one eight the code in sequence needs to provide new translation activity there's no spirit in this case that the specific it's the d n a coding region that expresses the translation activity up the lower court had a concern with regard to the breadth of what we're going to do with the doctor equipments all i can tell you is that the peel s g five that every element is there that it's essentially the same elements that we had in connection with our argument when you have the cup so i submit it's there the final point in my fifty nine seconds