the grounds are certain and when i looked at the record i saw that you had testimony that the range was too broad the other side had testimony that the range was suitable but other than an assertion from dr kibbie that the brain range was too broad what did you have by way of evidences to show either a what would have been brought enough but not too broad or be why this range was too the doctor cal said he didn't remember whether he had come up with the claimed ranges it was possible that he did but he did hear asserted that he thought they were suitable well as and your witness testified that they weren't suitable but no one so far as i can here where we're not cleaning the pan or must test all formulations across a claimed range in the in the normal course but in a was caught between a rock and a hard place they had on sale bar problem in addition to their written description to work until they are tested and that's the arguments that they make pages four thousand three hundred and forty five of their read brief in response to obviousness it's not reasonable for a person of ordinary skill in the art to assume that they have have possession of the claim district court may be requires at least to remain and if not a outright reversal we took to be clear even if you want to say well there is a battle of evidence or a battle of experts to be had here that battle is nowhere to be found you do you think that kalpa place in this case i mean we've it is a different standard and yet your briefs suggest that there is a legal error on the arguing that it aired as a matter of law because it didn't talk about this court's opinion and cal i'm not saying that it had to but it did here is a matter of law in a number of ways you rejected prayer references like maloney which was before the supporting c on the theory that they included oxymorphone on a long list of compounds that's wrong on the facts and it's inconsistent with merck versus biograph it rejected the prior art references like ten west because they were not technical documents that's and our trial the district court records the standard was clear and convincing evidence we had days and days of testimony on this issue of the correspondence between the in the basket and the pad with different speeds and the judge made factual findings which are well supported they were not clearly erroneous evidence from dr killing but when they closed the case there was only six pages of the transcript in their closing where they addressed written description they had met through the doctor kitty was not credible they did not lie in this testimony and they made the argument they made here that they and we charted all of the generics dissolution profiles and they fill the entire range and to go beyond the range that claim that was so called rainbow char which was produced at that that's a district work we also had evidence avoidance of infringement rationale for for the rejecting the written description i think they're i think they're over reading that and that's not what the district court was saying we made the argument we're starting from a policy perspective you can't be l important that you claim it properly but it's also important under the policy of the patent law that the inventor get to clay the full scope of his or her invention and that's what we were talking about and that's what i believe the district judge was referring to that side began i want to stress  inherent and therefore not to not add anything of patentable significance could you address that certainly roger this goes back to the st point when you're proving obviousness case you have to establish that that the elements are in the prior art and then we go to the next question more than a twenty percent difference between fed and fast which is highly desirable because it means you don't have to give the kind of food warnings that you might need with some drugs where you say you must take this within five seconds of leave so they needed to establish that the that the permission of additional entrants into the generic market would harm and that's what i read in terms of the expert discussion most of his testimony it seemed to me went to not just it was an activist book whether or not roxanne or damages whenever you have competition and we have competition here there is going to be some lost sales too and though there may also be lost sales and the question is if you can't determine where the sales are coming from cites to the pages in the g a a which you believe demonstrate substantial evidence for the district court's fact finding was related to irreparable harm and in particular you understand that what i'm asking you to justify it is in the in the i p r including the combination of webster and west which was addressed by my doctor of mr black suggested that that we're you know raising the profile of the written description are given hot appeal i don't think that's a fair we've heard a lot about that dr facilities opinions today again that this report doesn't mention those at all in his opinion in his opinion and also none of what dr fauci he says goes to anything in the specification on why this extrapolation is reasonable his opinion is essentially just the general proposition that scientists can extrapolate again that you have them making arguments about the unique  they presented evidence to show that there was irreparable harm the fact that that you have a license generic on the market and it's the license in there that would be automatically substitutable not that their product comes against the notion that there is a alone and justify an irreparable harm conclusion even if the evidence doesn't justify the lost sales in particular what about that well judge judge moore again i think that there's a lot of conclusory assertions about irreparable harm that the district court's opinion and i think that even with respect to those it's very difficult to reconcile that with the evidence of record and particularly the fact that you had a generic that was already on the market any sort of harm