because m t v has a circular chromosome faithfully applying the principle stated in every breath the one to the facts of this case produces a different result and third the import of the three prime hy record of that we can look at where the court cited to that if we were agree reading based on your reading of what was actually argued in the back of one of rocketry cases that this argument about the primers having a three prime hydroxide was not actually presented to the court so we shouldn't say they imply a thing decided that the language that was used and back when in fact a two is about as broad as you can imagine it is you're on your own let me let me address and have how do we thank you your honor me please the court to rely on them the pattern here just tells the relevant audience biologist about the natural law that the inventors discovered that these signature nucleotides can be to you if you are because first of all the russias council tries to dismiss the holdings of frogger one that the primers are not eligible in that case as you know three offhand sentences answer and so is there anything about these primers that is not different from what occurred there and there's nothing that's that's what i was getting to with the discussion very remember in myriad the supreme court recognized that the isolated claims in front of it were different from that sequence in nature they were different because the bombs were severed and so they refer the supreme court refers to those claims as a non naturally occurring molecule they're different than what occurs to nature but the court doesn't stop there and says ok let's look at the differences and let's decide whether those differences are the result of an inventive concept the language used in alice myriad uses the language they're not the result of invention so the question that roche's council needs to answer is whether these three prime hydroxyl is at the ends of these primers are invention are they invented concept did these these particular primers occur in nature are well their own experts said that whether you're talking about a linear chromosome or a circular from zone the process of making a prime it's going to be the same that's within the ordinary skill all you have to know as soon as you know that  basis for the back and decision the basis for the bracket decision was that that there was no that there was no identification of anything about these primers that wasn't exactly the same as what occurs in nature and here you're conceding that these prim and that is the genetic sequence that you need to amplify in order to sort of primary needs to mimic the complimentary sequence that you're trying to amplify that's the overriding concern now this idea of the three prime h mayo makes the two step analysis explicit but myriad remember myriad recognizes that yet there are there are going to be some differences between the claim and the and the natural corollary to the cla is the analogue in nature but then the court goes on and says mimicking the language of male where it says in that case isolating d n a from its surrounding genetic material is not an act that might be eligible under step two of may which is yeah you know standard p c ours conventional but this is a modification of the c r like the modification to the lab technique in cells direct where all so i'll go the method claims and there really is no real distinction here between the method claims in areas that the method claims and genetic technologies and the method claims here roche takes the position that nobody has ever the patentee of genetic technologies nobody had ever used a primer to buy noncoding sequences to detect coding sequences the question is not whether anybody's ever done that before the question is first look at the claims are they directed to specific result and we have this natural occurring product of nature that we have discovered will treat a certain condition i think it would it would i think though because it and it there's no alteration of the natural product there's nothing it's either you know you take a pill or even something i mean the example i was talking i was thinking about was was  somebody was the first person to discover if you take an alibi planet and slice it open and put it on a burn can they patent that i think the analysis would have to go to the second step of mail which is it is this is a routine distinguish which is you know cells direct used a natural law but it used the natural law used the insight gained from the natural law in order to create something or create a collection of cells that had improved viability mean you could describe it as the application of their of their products is a new way to identify tuberculosis well and it an area so when you have a long line of panties behind them saying that because the aerial says i did and i think areas has language that that forecloses that argument it's just that the scope of that is it's kind of taken leave frog i think i totally understand that concern you tell me can you give me an example of a diagnostic method they supply and discovery of a gene sequence that is now a patent eligible in any way you stated if if such a thing exists i think it would be patton eligible under the second step of mail and what would you have to put into it to get it eligible under the sod it yeah you'd have to use something other than off the shelf p c r but then it's not the going to make that finding i think you're right i don't see how we could also say that the method claims are ineligible if you make that final but i just don't think the record and the law can support that fine but if we find pen ability under step i'm the on the step on the step two and step two yes i think that's right that they have to show something other than just standard off the shelf thank you ok thank