so it seemed to me unfair incorrect for him to disregard it seems to me if this record shows to make findings about what you are as a whole reflected that this was an incomplete  did the district why can't the district court even on summary judgment i mean be sustained because the evidence supplied that reason without there kind of as an ordinary matter somebody would start with put it i think he called it the basal media that is what he is what he said our expert said he wouldn't start there all he said yes as an ordinary matter you wouldn't start the argument is in the like must say well to us it wouldn't start there and that's not a good as when i were an artisan would start that supported by more general evidence about the extraordinary amount of experimentation and selection and you got eighty ingredients the judge spent fourteen pages talking about motivation entirely that discussion was general that is what has a general motivation to have to improve argument or a factual argument it has two components the legal argument is you should not use hindsight i dislike the monkey ingredients and that you can't just look at the differences i guess and you can't their argument is you don't need motivation or if it's interchangeable of step that for purposes of this discussion but you do need so then you need a reason f a c has to be desirable it can't be technically the prior art prefer concentration is outside of our range now overlapping concentrations are not obvious they are presumed it's for reasons that are presumed obvious because he remains creates a cats are held at a court process whether the improvement here there's no alleged improvement claim made is not alleged to be better than g s k or life tax and they go on what the improvement quote is more than the predictable use result here that controls because although they used alternative chemical forms for a handful of ingredients both g s k and life hacks the liver to the cells the exact same fifty two dollars ingredients as the claimed media exact same same food overlapping concentration i have a strange fascination with fair  kids that there were others that were better and therefore preferred the critically what came in also said was that it should be it should be noted that the effectiveness of any of these factors will depend not only am moreover the vendor for the media that we bought the vendor had it in its commercial products starting in two thousand and one so folks out there were using f a c so clearly it's not a teaching away case the the main whether there is a triable issue of fact about a starting point i think think the answer to that is yes because you're looking at a piece of prior art and you look at this prior art interchangeable ingredient to another jensen willow it's infringement serial theories and that's utterly that's what they said so just anyone reading those pieces of crap would know that they don't just compass just those talking about for differences are interchangeable with the life tech n g s k ingredients so there's no dispute they're just interchangeable so it's a maybe if i make sure that i understand your question think about how well there was a large to pick out a particular portrait of the on the wall and that's assuming that the law is at least now and since kimberly clark yes there does have to be a reason then there creates a tribal issue a fact about whether the starting point for the obviousness analysis was not what your starting point was as and i'm not sure whether the interchange ability piece of chaos our brand new media you use something that's available commercially yes k and life tech were not available commercially think of the consequences to the argument that they're making your mother if what they said this true the consequences would be truly absurd scientist could make utterly lutein modifications to existing prior art and then argue that it's happened that will because that piece of prior is not the right starting point and another along the same lines the more crowded the art the more the more difficult it would be to show obviousness because how would you check if there's a lot of pertinent relevant are how would you show that one in particular is of the right starting point it's just not sensible but also your honor the districts are also an alternative rolling if this record held that even if you was required to show that life nd jess cagle the right starting points he said they court and geisler said in that circumstance you have to show that claims range is critical generally by showing that the claim green achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range jensen showed  opposite they said that their ranges were guidelines not critical and that there is a wide range of interchangeable concentration that with a deal a deal you deary so that would that would be a situation that can't possibly as here secondary considerations are inadequate to establish non obvious this as a matter of the law legal question so let me move on to standing briefly that we think is  i disagree on how that anybody has say the employee should assign this to i don't know two hundred companies there's pros and cons to the way you write these contracts there weren't vantages you have to engage in transfer and license agreements to get something else that right there's a disadvantage that because you have to do that as a free market transaction it sets the world the rate for your patent but the bottom line is there is no law in new jersey allowing courts to rewrite contracts and that's with this it is the district courts reading of this provision has two kids has two key problems one is that definition applies throughout the interpretations and only for the purpose of interpretive the writing you're not supposed to rewrite the contract to create an intention that's not expressed in the writing so it has to be faithful to the actual  on which we are built on people want to make media they always ends different ingredients they need transfer they need transfer replacements or the like so that's he says where you start  is something along the lines of it might not be unreasonable to do that a double negative and so i think in the light most favorable to us all he is saying is that's a technically feasible thing but i've never heard of anyone doing it and that's what our evidence is as well so again you don't like list paper with us that's what one does and there's no evidence of one doing the other ok let me make two other quick points that interchange ambiguity if there is ambiguity it only allows you to interpret those words through a reasonable alternative reading of the words it's not just what we said it's also what jans attorney said in court eleven times or eleven times they went to court and construe that definitions plain forward straightforward way covering what it says all four of those components they did it eleven times and one of those times they literally said that the two plaintiffs not just the direct employer but also j n j own all inventions patentable or not developed by the defendant while at the plaintiffs so they're in court taking the same position that we are but in the end if the district court didn't rely on of certainty because of i think the pros and cons of writing the contract in the different ways he didn't do that but ambiguity doesn't allow rewrites of contracts and that's all that is here there's no new jersey law that allows you to take a whole paragraph and because it's now inconvenient to janson redline everything after the words or if there's no further questions thank you