perhaps isn't entry better we're not entirely sure but we have failed to show motivation to combine these references with a reasonable expectation of success the board got to where it did while flying a rigid and highly formalistic version of  i think on the other side of the coin here but i don't think we have any fairly new forms to fill here i'll tell you why if i could go through the three reasons the board ruled against us in those periods ages eight twenty six twenty nine the first of the three  anticipation as an alternative route for firms because of what we dressed in the funny further back to the other the earlier case that we all just sat through i mean the main complaint there whether of legitimate or not we get to decide is that the the lack of discussion by the board the lack of analysis here it seems to me that whether you like it or not we've got a deferential standard of review we had witnesses the experts their testimony was discussed in detail by the board explained by the board why they rejected one and not another even the point you just made they dealt with that point and they said they're not persuaded that you've shown sufficiently that having pronounced the reference  teaches teaches the entirety of the swelling limitation and then they go on to explain their results i mean we've got some deference here we have to show there are experts on both sides of the issue this is that this is a addressed that all of the board addressed up at a different market which is the argument that if you were writing on a blank slate you would it would be very difficult to formulate an formulations i had that can be unpredictable we're not talking the predictability here are not just worry further ingredients or further components that after the added there are simply qualities and when the thirty seven bad stupid minutes is it tells us that if you take a definition that we were asking to have an initiation lot of reviewable initiation decision review if we were just patient we did the next best thing we said eight thirty seven answers any questions you got with regard to the two supposedly one twenty one one thirty three thirteen detail paragraphs with extensive reason is that there is by pinpoint citations to the two pieces of prior art and detailing two distinct reasons why a person of ordinary skill would rejected in its case our decision what the board did without any really really prior reference to the standard is you hang us up for failing to satisfy legal standard which doesn't appear in any case that they cited or in any where it initiation decision or was even raised they are and the way it was a play against us we think made the obvious this test into a rigid and mandatory formula what was once supposed to be a helpful insight became rigid mandatory that takes care of the first reason the second reason was the art of the produce recitation the problem to be solved was essentially a recitation of de wrong and you can find every single aspect of the problem to be solved right in the face of the three seven patent including the addition of possibility drugs which are right there finding and  it raised my eyebrows a bit when i read a read brief when the board clearly concluded here that although the claim limitations existed in the prior art and that there was no teaching the way it rejected your arguments in that regard it i mean they did have there they did have a witness the witness now the board i guess criticized their witness for having said it would take me five days and that doesn't give you the time of the invention i actually took that deposition where he said that and when this witness was testifying in deposition and in his declaration he gave very general broad conclusions he went back and cherry picked part based on complete hindsight what you would require  case every declared ours and there said there were numerous possibilities without any kind of certainty was all work in fact because it took three years came to them and said can you do this so we can't tell you something right there and that's what this new venture was about the third issue that calibrate brings up is the  secondary considerations which we just heard about that wasn't briefed either by my friend on the other side the request for it remained in lieu of the reversal comes a little late when he had the opportunity to put it this read brief in fact the  ruling here was made not only on the independent claims the dependent claims as well based on the same rationale that we discussed the three the three points made by the by the board in its opinion and you can find that with the other and the answer is very clear it was an extraordinarily limited universe the possible options it is not the formulae are for you but it formulators nightmare of millions and millions of possible options when i