thank you yours and happy new year christopher sites here on behalf of the the pellets the inventors here get exactly what i was is designed to encourage they develop a new and better way of treating a disorder middle of the night insomnia by giving patients suffering from the disorder both less drug and giving it less frequent this was a clear departure from the teachings of prior art the court itself found but you're acting as though we're the entry and the five milligram does not but there's a but there's a there's a more fundamental point here which is there was art that specifically discussed how to use soap and to treat more than insomnia and that for example was the title the conclusions talking about this art program in down to the conclusions work if you wanted to choose a drug to use in the middle of the night for insomnia that you would use out upon and that you would not use zolpidem so the very without properly considering the teaching away and the law to call the nature of mill the night it's i mean that's the classic hindsight are of looking at something after the fact and saying oh it's common sense it must be obvious we not with not common this too directly teaches away from what the court thought was common sense and there's a reason for that because of course it's not common sense it's only common sense now that the inventors have made their invention now it's common sense to go to lower were particularly informative they produced the dosing for drug and been around for more than a decade before this invention and in fact further demonstrated that the mishandling of the are here and that the temptation of hindsight well but the rate of finding that the doctors had done before two thousand and four the final actually while it is unclear how common the practice was that if a twenty to twenty one at least some doctors are prescribing fractional half of one neutral and he admitted there's no corroboration no lecture notes no silly gnome's no patient nothing to corroborate that and in fact he admitted that his own publications throughout this  a thank you i may please the court i will be presenting the athlete arguments for all of the apple is today as the court observed there was extensive trial in this case and the trial judge was very diligent in considering all of the disputes raised in appellant's brief there was substantial evidence presented by over a dozen witnesses on invalidity and the trial judge had a basis for each of the findings that he made in this case essentially seek to retry the issues that were tried at court in in detail to address a couple of questions of court just now  asked and made clear that he was aware of as needed or non prophylactic so seeing prior to the critical day that said a eleven forty seven that's volume two of the trial transcript page eighty two and he was asked line ten this is a study that attempts to quantify the practice specifically splitting ambien doses with an instruction to take the split ambien on an as needed basis at the time of the weakening and he says yes and the question was although you quantified this in two thousand and eight you knew it was going on in two thousand and four when you started the project of the trial transcript and on page nineteen he was asked you are so used fractional am going to treat patients for middle of the night insomnia without prophylactic dosing and he says absolutely for years and he was asked and you used less than five milligrams and he said i did and those people were five where i suspected that five milligrams was too much news we've said in our brief further testimony of our commitment on that subject i think the significance of th only for what it was worth i think it also is a secondary consideration showings simultaneous invention at the very least the prior art was also very clear that logos and sold them as a fact of the people y on the first four tests was found so there was certainly explicit prior art which explicitly taught that low doses were effective to put people to sleep and one of the critical issues of the trial court was that the ten milligrams old that in the larger dose was prescribed to keep people sleep all night it wasn't that there was a belief that that higher amount was necessary to get people to sleep so the trial court had to resolve the evidence which show that all the time was necessary for all night sleep there was no believe that lower dose would not work to get people to sleep in fact the pirate explicitly taught that it would there was also in the law a study for that proposition on the subject of teaching the way the dog rangi reference in particular is very clear that that investigator was investigating the side effects of the commercially recommended ten milligram dos plan and so the only thing that he taught was that ten milligrams was too much because there were residual side effects there was extensive testimony we've cited in our briefs that the teaching of references and whether they were teaching the way our factual conclusions that were supported by evidence in the record and so whether or not a different fact finding might reach a different conclusion that is the few clues in the trial court reached and it was well support to find the lowest effective dose and that is because it should be less likely to produce adverse of the facts and so the skilled artisan was highly motivated to look for the lost effectiveness that's of sedative effect said dr size there is particularly clear on that point at the appendix at nineteen twenty four in volume ten of the trial transcript where he says the food and drug administration generally requires anyone coming out with a new drug application to identify the lowest effective dose because that minimizes side effects he was asked you agree with that he said i agree fully and then he discussed the milady study as an example of how an artisan who do a teachers and probably using ten milligrams of bed time and then as needed five more if you woke up and that's what the two thousand and eight study that's being discussed there found what what is at issue here is the decision to give up a low dose way is current and present the present teaching a few months after his invention so we came up with ambien c r higher doses to treat the overnight insomnia that's at a sixteen seventy two zero eight eight forty three and a