the large number of drugs let's say and a large number of conditions that those may truly what role that may play in rendering a reference less compelling as prior art and for example and if you have a prior art let's say the physician's desk reference that says the following pain killers can be used with respect to the following forms of pain that can be safely use and you have a pain killers and you have eleven different areas of body pain types of pain so many can't come along later and say well i'm going to pick number three  seem in all likelihood to have some utility with respect to this list of of conditions wouldn't wouldn't that be if not anticipating wouldn't it be a very strong prior reference i think it whether one would start with the actual compound chosen from the list and then use that as a in the hopes of a treatment for the particular medication in question so in my case you would say it would be possible for somebody to say i get a patent an idea present used for hip pain because no one had a a list that was limited just to one or two of each  a vent and in a lab rather the model that they used is declared by not only the doctor and slave the inventor dr top and also third expert from the cleveland clinic and many drugs can be used for multiple indications and instant addition to the fact that those are in claim but also we have the second prong which is that we said not to use the trans or talk of it doesn't have the function milligrams of l carnitine thereby strongly suggesting that five hundred milligrams of risperdal would be an appropriate those age and then the board went on to say well the is essentially confirms that five hundred milligram dosages or five hundred or one thousand would simultaneously seriously inhibiting cox one that's a couple responses to that the first is that the claimed invention says nothing at all about cox and addition and the directly like most n a s id's inhibits both cox one and cox two and then it specifically mentions risk very troll and then goes on to say you know these traditional n s a these are more potent against cox one than cox two which is consistent with what sue chuck teaches which is basically every spiritual is more has a stronger have a tory a ficus a against cox one that with respect to sort of that extra little reference there i think there is language with you know again  what lee has said is that research role is specific for cox overall for cox as compared to other ends on his but i think and it hasn't specific for cox one and cox two but it seems to be more highly effective against cox one so i don't think it's just sort of saying that's a specific and hit or hitter of cox two is wrong because it does have some inhibitory activity against cox two but more generally in the reference i think in a  thirty four it talks about n s a i d s where it refers to figure sixteen will fix figure sixteen is the risk area trial study and then it talks about n s a i d s that are selective cox two inhibitors at then references figure seventeen and that regardless of the mechanism of an action what is very clear from from lee is that risk very troll is effective against all timers disease and that is what the you know the claimed invention is could you see if you understand in the context what that