section of the age weight and the tightest likeliness quote a chemical analogue of minocycline so they're very structurally similar and an improved antibiotic that quote has been shown to work or other antibiotics have failed and quote which is the quote we just referred to  cited send you dictates that under these facts a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the simple substitution of generational drugs thereby running the claims invalid is obvious while this case can be decided on the we have to do to find substantial through a lack of data because i particularly when we're talking about a lack of motivation combined that's kind of negative evidence i mean basically don't we just look to the board reasoning and say is there anything believe there are two parts that you honor the first of which is that we are very sensitive to the issue of a standard review and the issue of substantial evidence that's why our brief is limited to only legal errors and specifically the legal errors that the board committed in not addressing particular motivation to combine arguments so we're not trying to argue that i did that but i don't know that that's even if that's true and i don't necessarily think it's that that's still about you we're still talking about a factual finding they found no  long as that support of a substantial evidence then we have to affirm it only i don't believe so your honor because under for example this court's cuts for that decision it's not sufficient for the board to simply lay out the party's arguments and then provide a broad sweeping sweeping generalized conclusion which is exactly what happened here there were a number of motivations that we raised in some cases the board recited them but then provided no analysis which means that that does not enable this court to have anything to actually review and so there's nothing to review and how can the court do with can this court do its job and that's why it comes forth is so clear about that which is that the the the p tab in this case needs to do its analysis and show why it's reasoning the way it is and didn't do that in a number of cases of the legal errors that made reading limitations into the claims president including send to this cause the board to discredit the texas leader reference the chinese five fifty application and one of its sense secondary references for not teaching a nonexistent limitation which is exactly what happened in  type motivation and then the second motivation has to do with just simply that structural similarity in the only difference at the scene and position for tiger cycling and the board also disregarded to motivations to combine to optimize the ph ranges for the opponent read from paragraph eighty four of the declaration of dr nelson it's expert which addresses the issue that type of cycling was known to succeed where other cats are cycling antibiotics have been known to fail and to suggest that this is some separate and apart from any of them are zation argument that actually was presented by after tax as a distinct argument below it simply isn't true but let's leave that aside for a moment because the argument that we heard today that we've heard in the brief  bloated and the board after reciting that paragraph basically rejects petitioner appetites and dr nelson's argument basically saying that neither petitioner nor dr nelson provides information demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill would have relied on this therapeutic effectiveness of type it's likely it's not that the board didn't address abductees argument the board did address after texas argument and found it wanting they simply were not convinced by the only cycling is very similar structurally to mine of cycling they differ in the nine position they have the same for and it's an analogue that doesn't mean they're structurally similar and it doesn't mean that whatever properties are disclosed with respect to mine of cycling in the prior five fifty patent would have been expected to accrue for taiga cycling in a different formulation if one made the substitution in fact the board addressed that very argument at page fourteen of its opinion finding respectfully is no not even challenge here on appeal the idea that one would just assume that everything that is true of mine that cycling in the formulation of stand by fifty would be true of tiger cycling simply is refuted by the way these compounds relate to oxidation that is breakdown as a result of oxygen is quite different as a result of that structural difference at the scene nine position moreover there is an entirely different pathway of break down a result of the mean as a result of the substantially at the nine position of target cycling wouldn't be present for minus cycles so the notion that one could simply substitute back and forth tyga cycle for minus cycle because they may look similar to a layman on a piece of paper is simply not reflected in the record dr nelson at the texas own expert agreed at eight twenty forty two that with respect to break down from oxygen mine the cycling antigun cycling would be different in terms of the ph at which this breakdown would occur again and that factual record is what the board relied on reaching the conclusion that a fourteen that ab texas argument presented in their  petition at page thirty nine eighty five is simply incorrect that a person of ordinary skill would not have expected the same advantages from c n five fifty to accrue to a formulation of tide cycle and that's where we get to the primary therefore this court's review was of substantial evidence of a finding of motivation of obviousness the court made extensive factual findings in its initial two thousand and ten opinion including that a person of ordinary skills and that are would have expected the new compound to soon to be formulated in the same way as the prior are quinolones of the four seven of the four five six patent that had the ca in other words there was a factual finding by the district court in that case that there this case one has precisely the opposite factual finding by the board that is that one when one makes the substitution a person of ordinary skill would not have expected the benefits of the prior art here c n n five fifty two a crew moreover there six sixty two and the cruel article at eighty two seventy two absent ignores all of this evidence completely because it does not and cannot cite the proposition that the board's finding that a person of skilled wouldn't have been motivated to make the substitution is supported by substantial evidence it's not only supported by substantial evidence it is the only binding that the board could have made on the record below and it's not even challenge by appetites in th if i could just address briefly the ph motivation argument that counsel referred to as well i just want to be clear we're not only fighting that motivation on the basis of some procedural impropriety rather the motivation does not work to end up in the claims the question in century when every other case is whether if one combined the references and had a motivation to do that would the claim result the ph motivations that are advancing here on appeal by appetites never leave you to type it's likely the idea that one would have wanted the use of ph of four or five which by the way with not supported by the record below which will get to the second doesn't provide a motivation to use type of or its properties for use was devastating for appetites this case and they can't overcome it here so they have a series of references which they attempted from barring including for ph reasons but again there's no tiger cycling  they're completely separate and basically he has to argue that sensu in the structural similarity arguments are somehow intertwined with the primaries ation because he doesn't make that argument and this has to go back because it's clear from the board's very  the board never addressed issues relating to the censure improvement type argument or or structural similarity also with respect to the p tab or citing certain arguments in a block quote well first of all setting forth an argument a block quote is not the same thing as analyzing it and what's notably absent from this from the court's opinion is actual analysis with respect to the center type argument or the substitution argument also with respect to judge wallace question about sensu what you had in that case was an understanding in the art that there was an improved antibiotic that was replacing a prior generation antibiotic and the fact that that was known in the r was enough for that motivation to substitute here we have something even better than that what we have is an to break this down the primary issue is why one would be motivated to substitute an old antibiotic for a structurally similar one and that's exactly what censure was about and in that case the motivation was known in the art that got a fox and was an improved your burden to show that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine them and then the board disagrees with you and reject your evidence in favor of your cause friends of it then i don't see how we can as a matter of law say that was to say because if they didn't just pose a problem to say let me put them aside aside let's assume we disagree with you about that disregarding your references that we find enough in the opinion to think that they've carefully considered this case they consider all of your arguments even if they didn't write extensively they did check them on the facts are we in a substantial evidence review land and then don't you have a really difficult problem i don't think we can ignore the fact that the board simply gave you nothing to review to assess substantial evidence for the board simply didn't do that analysis for you for you to take the bull by the horns and do the analysis and forcing all the board did was provide a sweeping conclusory statement which is what comes forth councils against the board doing so i guess just to conclude for we have