focused on generalized statements of uncertainty in the prior art it excluded specific teachings of what would happen if it went into reasonable expectations now here's the problem none of the general statements of uncertainty accounted for ones that were published contemporaneous with that did not mention those teachings whatsoever through is both factual error because the court didn't recognize the teachings of law but don't want to play but more importantly it was legal here because this unresolved in the district court said there was no reasonable expectation of success because it wasn't resolved fully how to mobilize stem cells but that's not really what's required which required by the law is that there be a reasonable probability that there will vitro data that demonstrated that by using g c s staff and using it both in vivo and in vitro and when you put on top of that then the teachings of cohen apply which both accurate that in terms of a teaching but then also also said that one  was it's odd determination that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that you would have wanted to increase c x e r for expression on stem cells well that's the exact opposite of what any person of ordinary skill in the art would have done in light of the prior art in the district court just made a fundamental clear the prior art uniformly taught and lapid it was a great example of the prior uniformly taught that c x your four worked to draw stem cells into the bone marrow and it prevented mobilization so it was just fundamentally wrong incorrect for the district court to draw the opposite conclusion was evidence of others of the localizer like d c s that increased  x your four than they did prior to the administration of g s and the reason for that which was explained in the trial for in there was a contrary testimony about this the reason is that the stem cells of century are compensating for the reduction in s  demonstrate why g c s staff work that demonstrate that the importance of why it worked or the mechanism by which it worked was by getting in the middle of the s d f once you next year for interaction in this wrapping that interaction so again before those publications you know there was much more uncertainty after those publications there was a reasonable expectation of success that if you administered something to break that connection as colonel plum expressly tells you to do success which is quite different from the extent to well so i think there's a reasonable probability of success when you when you measure what there was a test demonstrated and what the experts testify  concluded in the data with with in vivo data and some in vitro data would lap the ads in vitro is that if you disrupt the s d f once you next year for connection stem cells are being mobilized and that's how g c s stuff worked so once those studies were published there was then a reasonable probability of success for a person skill in the yard and you know the bottom line with that and there's testimony about that this in the district court is it wasn't difficult honor when you look at the district court's conclusions on motivation in the district court's conclusions when the district court evaluated the inventor of reasonable expectations the findings the district court makes there are totally the opposite of what the district court made with respect to reasonable expectation of a person of ordinary skill in the art just record appropriately concluded that it was known in the art that the s d f once you next year for interaction or mechanism is ho unclean features if all we look at is is a molecule that disrupts the cxi or for us the f one interaction to mobilize some stem cells that can be harvested that was all there in the district court made up proper conclusion with respect to the the district court was looking to unclean features including clinical success relative to g c s f whereas the evidence demonstrated that there were numerous prior art molecules that are out there that when minister pattern analysis that this court is using the court in other cases on its head instead it was speculative that others would have come up with the invention but for the blocking pattern but that's not the analysis this court's analysis of is applied that if there it's speculative that along film your failure of others is due to any other reason other than the blocking and then finally on the address letter the entry of letter is clear evidence of simultaneous invention again i think the cells into the blood that's correct and the district court made a specific finding the lack of reasonable expectation of success without any reference to engraft ability of the  i could refer your honor to the appendix page seventy six paragraph one hundred and twelve this is one of several findings factual findings by the district court on reasonable expectation of success in the courts it should not be lost on those of us looking back i can say in hindsight to september two thousand the person born or skilled in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation  motivation of the person of ordinary skill me aren't looking at the prior art is focused on a particular goal and the court here found that the motivating force of the person of skill in the art was to find a better stemcell mobilizing agents and she said so and with that goal in mind institute pastore says when you come to the no reasonable expectation of success analysis you can't then what were the goal to something other than what the person of skill in the art was looking at and engraft ability there's no point in mobilizing and certainly no point in harvesting stem cells that warning graft  research and that would be understood to be implicit and according to institute pastore when you get to a reasonable expectation of success you don't then lower the bar to something  yet found no reasonable expectation of success and if i could return to appendix page seventy six of the district court's opinion found that based on the uncertainties regarding the mechanisms of stem cell mobilization and the district court had already found that everyone including experts viewed the mechanisms and molecules involved in stem cell mobilization as extremely complex and uncertain ordinary skill in the art had given pulitzer for a try that doesn't mean that such a person could at that time ever reasonably expected it would succeed in mobilizing stem cells no reference to  and since the person of ordinary skill in the art as found factually by the district court would not have had a reasonable expectation based on the uncertainty in the art and based on the fact that known stem cell mobilize increased c x e r for expressions such that one wouldn't jump to the conclusion that you should go the other way in fact that would say that with the lower your expectation of success based on those factual findings alone the district court found no reasonable expectation of success and again reach that same conclusion just so the record is complete at appendix pages sixty two and sixty three there was an abundance of riches here your honour's why there was no reasonable expectation success the district were also referred to the lack of graft ability is strong motivation to combine right when reading through your jordan's motivation analysis i mean it practically convinced me that the claims are obvious in light of everything that was going on with you know hendrix and the new references that were those two standards a perfect example is this court's decision in the regents university of california versus the institute on the cas nine where the court found a strong motivation to com and yet also found that there was no reasonable expectation of success here the finding out the motivation to combine is i think i can characterize it fairly as we because the judge found that the person of skill in the potential misgivings the slight not thinking it would necessarily and so the two issues are not the same and we do not know you're not challenging the district court's finding on motivation but it's certainly in this factual record as not to a finding of no expectation success and the district court made that factual findings in terms of the district court's decision was also supported by a number of unexpected court found it was unexpected that when you practiced the claim method when you administer well except for it mobilizes stem cells rapidly and predictably the prior art it might take fifty seven d from the panel point have you got another one what about what about the notion of a blocking patent when it comes to secondary consideration evidence and in this particular instance the judge said well you need to have actual hard evidence that there were scientists out there that wanted to use the patented compound but were effect that whether a patent block a blocking pattern has any effect on the nine obviousness issue is very fact specific and especially you need to look in the particular faction of the case in order to decide with an economics expert testified in detail about how the blocking patents in that case actually blocked people from doing the research necessary no such testimony as so i don't think you know especially if such a fact specific inquiry as held by this court in a corner just inaccurate thank you landman think your honor i just have a few quick points and i'll start with the blocking power question now says there was clear testimony by dr andrea that he couldn't get access to florida for a letter he sent in his testimony and he said because genzyme was the only court's various reasons why didn't found reasonable expectation of success it is pure speculation to know how the district court would come out if the legal or it committed with respect to engraftment requirement so it's pure speculation that the district court would still flying there to be no reasonable expectation of success and in fact the positives i did when i spoke for that all the evidence that were respected motivation in the evidence it with respect to the inventor's reasonable expectation of success support reasonable expectation for a person of ordinary skill much of any other questions i thank you for talking thank you thank you