clear well first of all i mean there's a language in there about evidence not being sufficient proof overcome the evidence of it is on the other side of the issue but that it's ok to shift the burden of production and they ask i believe another third question presented for this court to affirm but it's more than just language your honor if you look at the  local and systemic toxicology problems so there can't be a general motivation to make small there can't be a general motivation to make faster because you need to know first if you're the only reason four six six so bad form a leader who just proves things in a pot of his language one of ordinary skill knows that you have to understand your drug substance first for him to sign a formulation this is the whole concept that responsive to your argument your rational design theory used you cited you knew you were introduced it absolutely and so i'm not sure what's wrong with the board pointing to portions of value and saying it didn't agree with your argument about your rational design really and your citation of view because it pointed to other portions of you and said they didn't think that it supported your argument i don't see why there is a notice and comment problem with that short so i can explain rational design theory that's what i don't understand it's that that they're not using it to fill a gap in say motivation a combining of using that reference in a way that it was never used you introduce that reference in support of the and the death and reference that we relied on was here this piece of the publication disclosing oral formulations of that drug using specific except the for the purpose of treating a record dysfunction and specific dosage ranges just that were disclosed that was a starting point for our obviousness analysis and as we pointed out in both petitions when you compare the claims of the two patents in issue i reproduce the the inside cover of the red roof you can see there they have a common limitation a reduced particle size to bill of forty my props that was a common issue between both like yours we addressed that limitation which is was the teaching of common pharmaceutical techniques were dressing that problem of slow dissolution the most common technique used in the art is to grind the drug call micro nice and specifically to grind it to the size range claimed in the pats the second actively indecision at age fifty eight refers to this grinding process and said this frequently substantial evidence supporting the record so if you just answer the question why create formulation analysis isn't required an instance where the board found that first of all you're already starting to formulate a drug in d so pretty formulation analysis to determine how to make a formulation would even be your starting point down if you started when you got formulations and the only difference between doubt and these claims at issue is whether the micro because obviously this doesn't require absolute predictability or requires a reasonable expectation of success and based on which caught and set them what the there's a reasonable expectation that the drug  and even in the context of where you have relatively low side delivery which isn't the case for talf help you need to go look at