sole issue on appeal is whether forwards applications contain adequate written description to support the asserted claim it does and the board urged in finding otherwise the claim is very simple it has multiple sclerosis and your honor i'll go right there the board found out it was expressly this was three times in the disclosure let's look to what the board found about the upscale table which appears in the appendix of pages one sixty to one sixty two where were application your honor let's get the board found that it did the board finds at age twenty two that one skilled in the art would have recognized that the inventors had considered those few merits to be significant in treatment of the listed conditions and diseases so your honor let me let me go through it in steps if i could dose the doses they are as you said the dose of four hundred eighty milligrams a day is expressively mentioned three times in the disclosure including in the upscale table that's the board's finding at age twenty two it also finds a fourteen that the dosage of four hundred eighty milligrams a day was specified in the upscale table there's no ambiguity the dose is there second rate seven ones to go daily dosage depends on the number of factors including the condition or disease to be treated that's not right your honor if you reread that clause it says a number of factors including age weight and the underlying can cause it of the condition to be treated and the fact that a physician might vary the dosage for somebody based on their being too old or too thin or having multiple co morbidities has nothing to do with whether the four eighty one milligram a day dose was disclosed iran or the drug is disposed let's go to the second one of the board's findings i want to show you that the board's factual findings are all there and it's a legal error that led them out to see it was a day with the skill to move because ron i'm concerned about the reliance on the upscale table as being you're ramping up so that you're through with this control administration you're hoping someone to get used to the drug and avoid any g i side effects that's so that's why i'm worried about any choice of any of these intermediate we disclose dosage those ages before you ramp up to the maximum level they're not actually those injuries for day being therapeutically effective here's why the claim has no temporal limitation it doesn't say therapeutically effective for x result within y time and in fact therapeutically reflective was never construed by the board the board didn't say it was an additional limitation and in fact the claim here defines four hundred eighty milligrams a day as therapeutically effective it says where in four hundred and eighty milligrams a day is a therapeutically effective dose that's the claim now we're talking about the upscale doable yes around at the the upscale table is let me go to the third step so this first step is four hundred eighty is their second step is the drug is there there's no question that d m athan and the math are called out as the board says in significant detail in the disclosure and your honor if you go to one sixty and one sixty two you see that they can't hear the kids or administration of the drug over the up titration schedule getting the patient used to the drug over many weeks the kids tied together the dose the drug and the disease by saying that the cancer used to contemplated to be suitable for use in the treatment of multiple sclerosis now your honor therapeutically effect perfectly consistent with getting the patients used to the drug there's there's no question that reducing the side effects only matters if you're treating the patient in a way that is therapeutically effective that strength relative toxicity perhaps of this different drug these food and so the board concludes well this upscale table is not disclosing therapeutic effect amounts why would we say that that was an unreasonable reading of skill to it so to answer it your honor the board did not find that the board if you look to a twenty seven found that this was there a pubic usage found that the upscale table is consistent with therapeutic use and we cited the great grief  page eleven and multiple times where the board talked about therapy and treatment in conditions in connection with the upscale table you're referring to with a twenty seven i'm sorry the a twenty seven i think is what you said and so i think that the word refers to therapy well we're i guess what i'm wondering if i thought i heard you say any condition or disease or is otherwise of any particular significance with respect to treatment of m s or any other disease and your honor that's my second answer to judge jones question that line about particular significance was legal error and you do twenty four diseases and there's no question that if you had any doubt about all the diseases a person of skill in the prior art would certainly know that there are effective for psoriasis and for multiple sclerosis the prior art was overwhelming the board erred in ignoring the something these inventors bill it's most definitely not your honor we were the first to claim and disclose four hundred eighty milligrams a day as a therapeutic treatment for multiple sclerosis and what i want to go back to the legal error here because i think it's crucial i think the most important point is this court has two very well developed lines of cases and the board put us in the wrong line they thought this was a rouge a big no visitors case in which there's a disclosure of the f claims and twenty four conditions out of thousands of conditions inflammatory conditions the scientist in air patent it found that these inflammatory and auto immune conditions were late they had common disease mechanism so it's not surprising that few merits in these follow precisely on point for your question judge well i and that is because this instance or two that the party last tried to say well it's you know there's so many at so many different disposed here and there are so and claimed every treatment for every disease in the universe it's a narrow list eight specific those ads for twenty four diseases and i want to point out that there's no need to pick and choose among the dosages precisely because it's an upscale table your honor what the upscale table teaches the person of skill in the art is every one of these doses is to be used to treat the disease there's no telling what if what if we disagree on the upscale table and where are we if if if the court disagrees with your preferred reading of the upscaled able writer don't you wouldn't be disagreeing with me you'd be disagreeing with the bor the word has three faculty let's say we need to put the board's decision as a fact and saying what it said at page twenty two but the written description does not indicate four hundred eighty milligrams a day is a therapeutically effective dose with respect to any condition or disease and then there's other places where they say they look at the upscale table really more is a way in a means disclosed and contemplated to acclimate the patient to a given drug not to actually provide therapeutically effective about it so if we find that then where are we with your kids going to we still win under the original claims which can be sufficient for the disclosure and we went under the original claims because at claim forty four original claim forty four discloses multiple explosion of cross referencing of of all the different claims against each other i guess it would i don't know it would take the patients of a yogi to try to map your way when you have a claim forty four depending on any one of the earlier forty three claims not at all your honor first of all it's a danish patent they don't follow or multiple to them and see rules but putting that aside remember your lie is that each claim is its own invention and we claimed the invention in the era claims and i want to say why you shouldn't disagree with me on the on the upscale table i think you would be changing this circuit's law in a dramatic way that would weaponize section one twelve as a new weapon against conventional pharmaceutical planing practices in which multiple doses for multiple diseases are applied and you rejected that approach your you said you're allowed to disclose a species among several species you're allowed to dispose if you expressively dispose even if it's among several species expressed exposure and this is the one twelve inquiry of saying oh you still need blaze marks and you need to call that particular significance and that's what you rejected them script that's what you rejected and censor and if you can't impose a new blaze marks requirement patents where there is an express disclosure even if it is as no designs itself conceded would be fine individually described as one of several possibilities if you're going to throw one twelve one into a into a very different situation your i c m has my time thank you very much i didn't want to use up any of your  time but what i said when you said it doesn't matter and i said what i say always matters is not a humorous because it gives counsel momentary correct your honor i'm happy to take additional time to go back but no five  you may please the court the judgment below should be for for at least three reasons for first has already been alluded to which is the fact finding that there was no written description here is supported by substantial evidence and indeed it was clearly this position it could be one of many thirty different things and then at the next position it could be one of forty different things and then yet a third position it could be one of twenty five things would you say that there's a lack of written description if a position under one it's you know element seven and desertion two was element fourteen of that list of thirty and then a position three it element twenty four of the possible twenty five possibilities with that lack written description position three and then your view ultimately claimed at a later date you know a specific composition that's inside all of those different lists that would like written tire and here's a list of twenty different kinds of tires i want to good bicycle seat here's one hundred twenty bicycle seats and i want to good rating system here's a list of twenty rating systems and then i later claim a particular braking system bicycle seat and tire that i listed in contemplated that would like written description and the short answer and i you know what's the problem i mean what is the problem with the pharma example i gave and the bicycle example they gave well in the farm my example and the court s laundry lists like that don't lead to particular combination and indeed it was not holding another scientists well let's just think about that out loud i mean unless you are you're necessarily reaching a conclusion that someone didn't possess everything that was listed because they're because of some reason and that reason must be because you don't believe that that those different combinations would actually work for its intended purpose and that sounds more like a i don't know and enablement defect or something like that in a written description the fact you've actually literally described in your lists the different possibilities that there are different positions whether it's for a bicycle or a compound what you've described is a generic invention and you can have generic inventions that co exist with more specific invent because very often the project reclaimed doesn't describe doesn't anticipate doesn't even render obvious to her or invention and the case we have here is the classic written description case where somebody with a broad blunder hypothetical ought to be that there's no written description for that particular claim to bicycle with the tire the seat and the brakes right or wrong because i don't know if there's anything in nova zones or future car that rests it's holding on the notion this is for you know farmer world tricky science we're not really sure whether any of this is actually enabled ok it's not necessarily a question of the mabel made and all these cases say what you tell the person in the name sure they could make it but there's nothing in your patent that even calls that name to mind that directs them to make categories and forty third ago as i meet them forty different names of types of tires were men but there was nothing what the scenario would be suppose instead of having a generic bicycle when you pick a tire fifteen and break forty three and see fifty nine all of a sudden the bicycle goes ten times pastor than any other place school described or that person had no possession of that invention and that's the sort of reaping where you didn't so that the written description requirement is intended to prevent and the fact of the matter is the fact finding period that it wasn't there is supported by substantial maybe just lack of and disclosure of the view of the inventors contemplated that four hundred eighty milligrams per day would be therapeutically effective for anything that that is exactly what the board held and that is exactly the core fail a step in there is just strains credulity are witnesses testified that these twenty four different diseases had affect disparate organs with differing pathophysiology is including generalized pain which has nothing to do one point worth noting is reference was made to page one sixty two two in the f t application saying that the compositions and kits and they could be used for everything that doesn't say that it says the compositions and kits according to the invention are contemplated to be suitable to use of the treatment of one or more of the following conditions and they never identified which the one or more w and the fact acquitted but just to set the legal framework the the board said you can't reach into the prior art to do it obviousness type analysis to fill the voids in ordinary skill of the art might looking at the application say gee i wonder if they thought of this even though they didn't disclose it that's not the right analysis and that's what they're trying to do there's nothing here and indeed it isn't helpful the prior art isn't helpful dr ravitch confirmed at paragraph thirty seven of this declaration a seventy three eighty three that in the prior art there is no disclosure of four hundred eighty milligram that is directed to with these particular from rights i guess that it daily dosage of four hundred eighty milligrams well to start at the very end even your original claims don't describe the daily dosage because they don't tell you how many pills you take each of ministration and page one sixty one of their own application shows that it can be different at different times of the day so you there's nothing in the claims that tells you a daily dose but more important one point that's of two hundred forty and then there's another course it says the amount that's in the pill and it says how many times a day it doesn't tell you how many pills you take each time and that's what you need to get the daily dosage but more importantly than that that backward march  you can't do it with hindsight you have to look at the disclosure including the original claims and i'm guided by later knowledge of the invention you've got to see that the inventor and that particular thing is his invention and  further claim construction is required they construed the claim to the extent they needed to there simply isn't any description anywhere on the patent of four hundred eighty milligrams being a therapeutically effective dose for m s and therefore under any reasonable construction of that term they would fail and lastly my friend did correctly state the issue here it's only forward pharmacist specification and the written description there there is some intimation in their reply brief trying to draw comparisons to buy agent specification by jim specifications not before the court it is relevant and more importantly those arguments were waived by not having honest very briefly we are judged chan's bicycle hypothetical there is express disclosure even though there is a list of eight and a list of twenty four we are express disclosure we are not nova zines my friend like this is not over signs no designs would have come out the other way if there had been express literal disclosure of the claim notice i'm turned on the fact that the substitution at location two thirty nine  way if there'd been expressed literal disclosure even if it had been in a list that sensor lists are ok even if it's disclosed among several possibilities second we're not a hindsight case we didn't go out and troll later backwards to a generic claim for using few merits to treat inflammatory conditions we were the first to claim four hundred eighty milligrams today of d m f to treat and that and we did it we disclose that in the upscale table and the upscale table tells pos ignore it we think with the express description we had even though it was in a list where plainly insteps are interested all were not in nova zines and your honor my friend is right that at we all thought the point of novelty was the four hundred eighty milligrams that particular m as for that for them to connect the amount to two m s which is what the boards seem to be finding missing and finally under one or more is a red herring one or more if you look at it simply means a patient might have one or more conditions at the same time if you look