our last case this morning harmed the first error that the district court made was when it reviewed the prior art patent the radhakrishnan patent which had all the elements of song you wouldn't have the depo effect and they magnificent advance that this made in the ark so why isn't her interpretation of the composition element correct well first mentions the persones at one point including and and lepus ohms comes in a laundry list but why isn't the district judge doing the right thing under our laws and  right and would produce this deep or beck that reduces the number of applications you have to make and the risks inherent in that wouldn't that be a natural way for the judge to interpret that interpret it so that the invention works and so it covers the preferred embodiment and then you could throw in that she's also interpret ing it to preserve the validity of  the patent itself those in the field who are reading it pat we're trying to stay out of the market have to pack an educated as to what the invention is in a reading that's been suggesting since you have to copy it precisely in order to get into the market is not limited by any particular mechanism of action is that a reference to the depot effect and it would let me put out throughout a working hypothesis is that the way i read it if you tell me if this is not the way you read it i read that to say that as the mechanism that makes this invention work i think that's a legitimate reading of the term your honor because they are trying to get the broader scope that they can and when they chose the words to use in the claim sophisticated company that has a huge patent portfolio when they pick and choose their words they're careful what they do and they just claim to be deseret composition i don't think in any way by those claims were they trying to limit the particular solution  tonight a composition that can exist i guess and some that can sound trite i'm not an expert in the field i'm not sure i can my understanding is that what they're talking about is suspense is the look the soul surrounds thought that they had come up with something that for the first time allowed in an active once a day that's what they say and what they're saying is one of the ways you can do this is simply use the tried in true method of putting these things and weapons around which the invention i mean it may be that your argument if you don't have a convention here but i like it but it seems inconsistent with the thrust of the first part of the specification to say oh and by the way one of the specifically saying that sentence that you pointed to in column three lines twelve to thirteen or fourteen work where it says this proposed mechanism of action is exemplary and the invention is not limited to any particular mechanism i believe that is a reference to the fact that they're not sure at this point in time that this is the precise mechanism but they certainly understand that people affected and if you notice if you look at that e the world that the patent that this is a potential future formulation however however when they defined their invention in the patent and they talked about what attention than it got from the problem when you tell me why that store acts and does not anticipate particularly in light of dr chips i think it's fair to say admission on cross examination that he characterization of the titration down in the andes essentially the same as the characterization in the label sure certainly i think there are two reasons why  upset is not an anticipation of the claims the first one is the context of that sentence that dr chips testified about within that ad and that critical print is very small i apologize it's a six five one two but i'd like to just read a little bit of that text to put that sentence in context because dr chips what dr chip said was the sentence the maintenance dose should be the lowest severe ask not and then it sets forth recommended starting dose and they are all twice a day then that it has the sentence about the maintenance dose should be the lowest dose which keeps the patient symptom free then it says recommended doses are and it goes on to list recommended maintenance doses both of which are twice a day adults point point five to one make twice daily children point two five two point down to once a day dosing and that is so there either two differences the thorax set is specifically label limited to twice a day dosing it sets forth twice a day maintenance doses texas label does not have lowest effective doses because the lowest effective dose varies from patient to patient and in fact it is point two five mixed once daily for a number of patients and talks about where there is no the whole paragraph receding that quote it is is a discussion of contributory infringement and in fact the case cited in that quote the canada nine hundred six canada case is a contributory infringement case and that's an element of contributory infringement court go ahead and then the work goes on and says however where the product is has extension not infringing uses a more acute work to fault we are primarily going to rest on our papers but i do want to make one point and then answer any questions or on his behalf we believe and submit that the district court err in not taking into account the special relationship between and in fact a skilled person reading this claim can as a matter of patent law can you incorporate a method into a an apparatus crime i think you can use i think you see certainly can with product by process requirements and the law and the fact that you cannot have a job without a label the right problem is wrong you consume your rebuttal time but let's give two extra here the fact that the label has this creation down language so it's not just that there may be substantial non printing uses when there are some instruction that would lead to an infringement but this is the problem with administration that language in there does not that they point to this titration doubt it doesn't explicitly teach once a day it does not say you must use this once a day that's been all removed this is a case where the section eight card occurred th two five twice a day what is titrating down and it would just take twenty five percent of the population that would be taking the drug and the risk would not be infringing but when it gives that direction with respect to some can a specific direction with respect to some considerable portion of the human population somewhere there's somebody that uses that drug in a way that i haven't instructed i haven't authorized in but some doctor is using it in a way that that would infringe that big difference between that bush is the case in which you say here's hacking into practice in that fashion or even were expected to pick if and if yes if you are a huge population that was using it twice a day and only a small one but you put that in the label to use it once a day or in the claim was use it once a day you're going to be doing it twice a day because at this point the art doesn't allow anything else no one even considers the chance of once again and that's the same as the after text label because all once a day has been removed it's only twice a day that's in there and is a finding because the part of that label that they referred to again that supposedly instructs induced constructs once a day the only evidence of that was astra zeneca is expert it's contrary to what the f d a ruled when it read and there's no evidence that a lawn i didn't hear anything about the cross appeal so i don't think there's anything for you to address at this point right thank you very much