so in the middle it and lines twenty one three twenty three there are specific controlled release critter area where it states the amount of polymer will be sufficient however to retain at least about forty percent of the drug within the matrix one hour after individually were deficient they did not meet the specific performance criteria that i just listed and that is why they were in combination and so such combinations that are called for another person or a skill in the art would do in light of art would look at the data and words to give those substances in order to give the substance context certain combinations will work to improve and those certain combinations were ones where the polymer was in aid of the deficient polymers meacher they were viewed solely in hindsight i mean i think it's important to to underscore the fact that that combination what the result was unpredictable the synergy was unexpected and in fact if you look at the characteristics of the each individual polymer h p m c swells less than peak that that means that it would have if place in combination one would have expected it to have so to be clear the unexpected results are due to the fact that the synergy is unexpected it could have gone worse it could have been the same it could have been the same as the combination the combination exceeded what one would have expected but there is no are examples it doesn't say that there are limits and samples i think a person or a scone aren't good at c the way how individual polymers were combined and to be clear the shelf the shell reference doesn't teach the synergistic effect which ties into the unrebutted unexpected result of this invention and also the longfellow unmet need because the three forty paten your honour's is the difference between having a once a day dosage form with less side effects versus the immediate release form that was already in the prior found here is that they didn't give much weight to that evidence because they did not present evidence of failure of others so it is not that they evidence a failure of others is required it is that the evatt because there was no evidence of failure water soluble drugs and so it is the director's position that the failure of others is not required but it is probative in determining whether or not there was a long felt need here in th in the on page forty the board noted that they gave little weight to patent owners argument that evidence of alleged unexpected results overcame the petitioner showing of obviousness in this case and what the you know board was doing there was giving little weight to the evidence that was presented condition well i think what the board did is they looked at all of the evidence before them and because the evidence of unexpected results did not have did not have i mean i think what the board i think the board did do it in two steps i think they first looked at the prior art of records and determine whether or not want to see in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to perform the claimed invention and then the board did look at the evidence that was presented forty they are heading to undo experimentation and unexpected results what i'd like to stress is the fact that when you look at the paragraphs in this portion of the opinion the first paragraph is is dealing with a new experimentation but there is no discussion of unexpected results so there is no consideration whatsoever as to the evidence of unexpected results which which which was submitted  recorded in the patent itself it really truly is both unrebutted by and over it is also not considered at all and yet the an undisputed unexpected results in the long unmet need here are very