degree what's the difference in kind your honor why is that but because this is not a static situation this is not a situation where some or almost all is enough if you do not kill all the bacteria that is i good in both in both situations the the agent that is affecting the reduction of bacteria the bacteria sidle agent is either working fairly to completely eliminate the bacteria or working only partially so that the mechanism is the the same whether the agent service a  function of killing bacteria or not is the same it's just a difference in degree correct well ah i respectfully disagree with your aunt because you do not know all that bacteria as i mentioned that residual chemical has a particular effect in killing bacteria whether it completely kills the bacteria or only partially kills the bacteria nonetheless it's killing bacteria it is killing bacteria that is that is correct and so it happened in this case you have one reference that suggests that this problem with catheters can be solved by using  some better than not of course it is but that does not take this to the end result the end result is you have to safeguard the safety of the patient and the only way you're going to safeguard that ace to kill all the bacteria in the catheter and in the culture surrounding you don't do that with patients in trouble and we're not saying that we only kill sun our claims say bacterial cybill that across a broad spectrum of bacteria ten years after who and what this rat say hydel abstract field of invention summary preferred abidance and claims you need the combination of an antibiotic for a you take a look at the key leaders of rat there's nothing that highlights tetra sodium from any of the others in fact the office goes to the preferred group of twelve when you go to the most prefer a for in the other part of record they all talk about combinations of antibiotics and some other type of age and when you're talking about human health this is not can you get a percipi compound ninety five percent is good but sure you'd like to get a hundred percent there is a life and death difference between song and all and that's what we're trying to say is that you can't ignore that difference the difference between inhibition and bacterial side can often be the difference between life and death and what we're trying to do is we're trying to give the patients the best opportunities of life here to avoid their capital related factor fourteen or seventy where you rat reference so i agree that there's a difference between inhibiting and and completely killing off the bacteria and that one would route to disinfect the catheter and it cheap the result that he achieved it and i think that's based on this what i think is i'm missing a misapprehension that what's relevant is this final result sense the claim is go beyond what we're told this new invention which is killing all bacteria because this is nothing in the in the references to show that the dyes seventy m had that effect result so we don't even need to reach the question of whether or not all bacteria will be filters kill if it's obvious to substitute for guide that you've got an obvious invention of the results happen to be right if you have an unexpected result then you  that it is something that the the more contemplates the law kind of place there be considered as a secondary consideration obviousness analysis but here it's an unexpectedly beneficial result where the expected result was already going to be beneficial you would combination where that use of that second substance was where or once we see the unexpected properties are so unexpected something totally new and different like in that in the in the atoms supreme court case where nobody  sign on for which they ultimately did end up looking at exhibit a the exhibit the purported to show these unexpected results and several were not even sure of the show unexpected results and one reason you can look at that is  root i just wanted to ask you about the board's decision in the discussion about consisting essentially which i thought was a little unusual and the board statement  bit confusing i think what's important to remember is they started on that system essentially dallas is slated for decision at age eight twenty three where they were responding to specific argument that the appellant made in the appeal brief regarding teaching apollo suggesting the rabbit was simply not being relevant such that it was not even permissible to combine rat with the root and that's what sort of led down to this half of what does consisting essentially of m reason i bring it up is because we have from time to time we get opinions from the board that have no we say lots of good reasons and maybe some other statements that are perhaps not so good and i realize you're in a little bit of a difficult position sometimes and having to defend the patent office but under circumstances like that it may be to your advantage to emphasize things that are support  agent as well which may very well explain why the crimes were written that way i'm trying to understand the the policy aspect it's seems to me that if i were on  you know very well no method for disinfecting catheters in the first place we've got a compound flushed several times a day using this illusion the song that reference we don't rely on talks about the body's immune system also being able to take care of bacteria that are not necessarily take care of