speak for the panels are just a motion to dismiss this out there all of that information is confidential except perhaps legal certainly no argument that might be made outside of the context of the specifics of the s brief moment to outline where i plan to go and you can tell me if i'm going in a different direction than you would like first is with regard to what in this case are called the three located but passes the different course of finding this a product which was free or substantially free actually substantially free is probably more accurate forty hydroxy but in your opinion for the court in chapter in this court's opinion entrapment was unpublished nonetheless we have which is which is unsustainable new and was found by the district court to be new how do we claim that and make sure that we honor chap well the answer is we put in this language derived from a talf so the small remaining parts of the get increased the pitch so that gravity would cause the stop to travel at the same rate as the water that was pulling the stock into the machine for pressing the drive but that was directly related to discovering the reason for doing it and i guess i have the are fundamentally different properties alpha once it was discovered was also discovered to be about four hundred times more sensitive to acid now that's what's happening in the so i hope your honor that we've been we've been completed with regard to this issue i think if you look to pages eighteen nineteen twenty in particular of our brief which is in the state patents that i pointed out to earlier are done on different conditions less acidic more basics as well as with a different catalyst and what we're staying here at the bottom of nineteen over twenty the ordinary participant would not apply type roger nation or any other that we are getting rid of virtually all of the eight out if that derive from a doubt that was not in the claims but you could make a few could i suppose make the argument that well as long as you get rid of us from wherever it doesn't matter but as a matter of scientific fact through this stuff you know with less fourteen hydroxy well that's not exactly true because that's exactly what the prior art tried and failed to do because of a beta which was hydrogenated under very different believe is trying the same thing over and over and expecting to get different results more hydrogenation didn't get rid of the fourteen hydroxy and it never happened it obvious that at some point someone was going to try it at a later stage  don't i don't know if this is if your question was about whether it was going to inevitably be discovered and i'm not sure that that's ever been able to have been made is there is there anything clearly erroneous in the district court's findings that everybody in the art knew that h nation reduce the level of fourteen hydroxy and the longer you did it you would expect to see less of it well if that's if that's the finding of fact of the just report but absolutely that's clearly erroneous because hydrogenation  on to further conclude that of those two arcs the code on was essentially the elephant in the room it was the biggest problem it was the one that would come as immediately to mind one still in the yard because it was the most prescribe a drug in that's not a major leap to go from an end if you think to article he wouldn't have considered a skilled artisan with consider that there are two morphine amounts to cold on for some reason and we don't know why because there was no cross examination of this table fifty six point five that does not fall within the purview of what one still never consider further edit they didn't put their own expert on to testify about this table the first time we hear about this table is on appeal you know in appell argument they want judges and lawyers to interpret this table and one skilled in the art has already done so at the district court level for them let's assume they're right let's assume there are three and not t blot that there were two and he took into account this table but let's assume that's wrong and there were three feet the testimony still is that oxytocin was the elephant in the room and one skilled in the art would have been drawn to that pro mcguinty application the us version of it turned into a patent holder nine six three atom just one book listed for the new product today it was in a lawsuit it was settled in the settlement documents that you have in front of you and is a real world confirmation of what the district court found so let me just back up a minute the district court found that the prior art related to polyethylene oxide would solve the problem that was identified to the problem here was  was being abused by crushing people with pressure and they would chew it swallow it they would crush it and inject it they would crush it and snort it whatever they did to abuse it they started by crushing the judge found that was the obvious problem the they began putting it through the six troopers to put heat and pressure on it and the tablets got harder and they still got least properties that were controlled release so one skilled in your according to district court will follow this path and lead and find a hard evidence of this what happened was there happened to be a drug to serve us which is mental standards in a ph d drug and this was abused by people they would pressured up and snort it or swallow it but it turned out when they put it in a in a longer acting product the soros type of product there was less of use and it was known through as a number of of the testimony one of the one of the gentleman was food we cited in our brief well actually useful and you look at the record you'll see evidence of folks hope that answers your question here so i'm an agreement i would suggest if you're going to look at the settlement agreement you look that we can say anything i mean it's confidential isn't i think is that in general terms i don't so how can i ask you a question like or respect what you're saying that's and that's fine if you don't use it perfectly happy to leave it is that ok thank you thank interested in that obvious determination all dressed up first i think the first problem with produce argument is that we have a fundamental disconnect between what is claimed and what they claim to be their invention they have said repeatedly today in their processing in the either processing court case the inventor invented in the she in machine that was the remedy to the problem and he claims that machine he didn't claim the papers that was made as a result of the machine he claimed the machine that solves the problem for do has not claimed the remedy or what he claims now or says now actually solves the problem of a it shows the way you do hydrate alpha is by age plus there are no specific there's nothing there about time about catalysts about reactions conditions which is nothing there and that's the only place it's the same my colleague is representing page nineteen in produce opening three and again talking about this is the process that's been a allegedly invented but they haven't claimed this process there is no claims it's directed to have an insulting plus hydrogenation t and it's my understanding that the in iraq area of our review wouldn't be to review the myriads of those determinations but simply to review whether or not stoppable was correctly applied is that your position that's correct feel that that would we would not be cone and also looked at the commercial success of purdue alleges is that of its supplier because of it's the supplier that makes a p i having low a bottom and when they tried to sell that to somebody other than their corporate affiliates they were not are two entirely different questions it may very well in french but it may not describe and that's what we have here is patent that doesn't describe conservative it was said to be a straw man well it was a straw man that our friends on the other side of and up a trial if repeatedly and we put that in our brief that's it our opening argument at eight thirty nine thirty four forty eight forty nine to fourteen point sixteen our pretrial memo was a fifty three fifty nine in our proposed findings before trial a seventy three fifteen supposed after a trial it was all over the place the judge to deal with the down points but we never deal with courts more recent decision of legal pharmaceuticals with regard to the substance of the i will rule my friend says that it's required to say that you have to patent the remedy real live dispute we've obviously just disputes obviously been joined here so this is not abstract it's not a side bet and after that what are the consequences of a decision i've realized were hard of three court with limited power but what are the