difference is let me see if i understand and yet the boy concluded it might mention these thirteen stereotypes but there's no indication the formulation was going to be successful or even considered and then you're trying to lump that with high rom and kyra doesn't disclose the six additional punch against right so no so opinion itself gives you all of a sudden fifty three in seven and six a in one thousand a those are the ones listed in claim eighteen and it tells you why this will widen the spectrum of ages and countries although it will continue to have much diversity in coverage these are the sarah types you're going to use because you want to conjugate because you want to reach children who don't respond to one conjugated version you want to reach all people who do not respond as well to the un conjugated version and you're going to add the most common stereotypes and pena tells you the exact them well it certainly is if you're trying to maximize your coverage you're going to go for the eighteen most common serotypes that cause most of the disease these are the ones we're going to pick in line and pena tells you to pick those make it in the lab to study it as pena was doing there making the lab to study it and once you're making it in the lab to study it then you're going to have to stabilize it against prohibition against silicone induced aggregation because as the board explained on page that for you in rebuttal but i think the short answer is that we didn't understand the board to be saying hey those thirteen known sarah types weren't obvious candidates because kenya itself tells you that they are obvious candidates because it sounds these are the thirteen sara types pena are there pena says here's the sarah types we're testing and you're going to pick those stereotypes for the reasons pena gives and you're going to choose those because that's how you expand coverage if you're look there's a a list of zero types you know how common they are and you keep going to the visions of study and not yet and as the board found that information alone is not sufficient to see whether those vaccines were even tried considered or successful and given the fact that prior art was showing that there was a trend towards using multiple carrier proteins rather than a single carrier from team like cleaning one hundred specifies there would be no reason to try to try this because the prior art was trending towards multiple are you agree that it would have been obvious to select the thirteen but that it was non obvious about this is the way it is the method of producing it my understanding of the board's decision your honor is the is that the board found that work failed to show a motivation so to combine the thirteen valent conjugates or to modify the prior art to you the thirteen valent conjugate formulation of clean to make that showing the board found that there was no motivation to get to the clean subject matter so but to try to be clear about that are you agree with mr lamb in that it would have been obvious to choose the  vaccine or did you have an expert who said it wouldn't have been obvious to choose the thirteen different he said it would have been obvious to choose the thirteen i would  and that it would not have been obvious to conjugate the these syrup types additional serum types in vaccines are higher bouncy crim for the reasons that i stated that these vaccines i apologize ron but i believe our tell our expert testified that the problem here was the selection of syria types and the contribution to the carrier protein crim the pain your reference does identify petition never showed while while it showed for example with respect to claim seventeen birth found the board found that in at appendix speech thirty nine the decision that unlike the in caron an express reference to struck the cox the morning and then it and expressed citation of a reference which is called the ribbon reference which identified with specificity the seven valid vaccine but conjugated crim was tried considered successful obvious or anywhere in in the art and that was the basis for the board's decision that there was no motivation to combine and that there was a like a because the adding the additional adding a did six additional sirrah types to a vaccine in this field is not a simple matter this is an unpredictable field here the seven ballot vaccine was approved in two thousand  suppression when you add additional conjugates to a vaccine you're adding additional antigens you're adding additional carrier property when you add dish will carry protein and you get that and those talk about this being an advanced base of study why isn't that sufficient to establish motivation they have to show that it was successful is that what's required by the law successful using thirteen conjugate this is a very unpredictable field and i think the board recognized that your honor and that's why they in finding claim seventeen obvious they were able to find that motivation because they saw that it was six s right that's fair your honor and but i believe that there is no reasonable expectation of success in in april of two thousand and six but i mean you believe that i mean  evidence and the witnesses are witnesses testified that there was no reasonable expectation of success in april of two thousand and six to generate a thirteen valent vaccine resigned in clean eighteen where all here on or i think a lot of the discussion shows that frankly it's not at all clear what the board's rationale was here some of us have been talking about whether or not the choice of the particular thirteen sarah types that are expressly disclosed in pena was obvious  assertion that in theory if you put too many pro too many stereotypes on a particular protein it was happy immune interference but that cannot be with the board met and it can't be with the board met for three reasons the st is the  itself was using a single carrier protein crim for its seven thousand nine hundred and eleven dollars thirteen cents vaillant versions so it can't be that there is no evidence that you can use it without c s and yet we won't consider the document actually show that it's being used immune interference why does it suddenly be calm not even obvious as a candidate up something obvious to do in the lab when you're just going from eleven thirteen there's another reason why c s can't be the user and that's to the board repeatedly found in the patent itself the claims and cells make clear that you don't have to have any particular level of immunogenicity for the you to end these claims so if you're having some decrease doesn't even have to be a factor was adept vaccine the notion that you're going to be turned from even trying it out when there's no particular level immunity and this is a required from the claims it's pretty hard to square with the words repeatedly says no require a degree of i mean just your at least to want to test it least you're going to want to try it and it's the composition an immunological version of it says we have a vaccine has these thirteen sara types and it works they can't strip out the requirement of it being having an immune effect at an obvious stabilizing